Don’t give me your hastags Mrs Obama your husband is the President of the United States for crying out loud.

He raises an excellent point. She is married to the president. Her best chance to help the kidnapped girls is to privately bring her concerns to her husband, wait for him to devise a plan*, and then publicly support his efforts.

But supporting her husband in his efforts has a number of drawbacks. It requires submission as well as a degree of accountability. If she supports her husband and his plan fails, she is associated with that failure. This way she can take credit for any success and avoid accountability for failure. If someone (someone with a penis) tries and fails, she can point out that of course that plan wasn’t the plan she had in mind all along. If someone (with a penis) tries and succeeds, she and all of the other women in the campaign can take credit for the success:

Nothing would have happened if men were left to their own devices! The world owes women a debt for pushing to have those girls rescued.

Mrs. Obama won’t be alone in taking credit for any success in rescuing the kidnapped girls of course. She will have to share the credit for any success with her fellow pouty faced (or angry faced) tweeters as well as the brave women in Nigeria:

…concerned women have threatened to converge in Lagos and other parts of the country and later proceed to Borno State, from where they would walk naked into the forest in search of the students.

As absurd as threatening to go naked into a snake infested jungle in order to punish kidnappers and rapists may sound, there is some logic here. First of course is the fact that they have no intention of actually doing such a thing, and if they did they would be careful not to venture far enough to place themselves in real danger. Second, by stripping naked (even metaphorically) they remind the world that they themselves do not have penises, so clearly they aren’t the ones who must do something. Just like with Mrs. Obama’s pouty faced tweet, they also don’t have to stand by either a plan or a leader. If their histrionics ultimately push their government to botch a risky rescue, they can accurately point out that their plan (running naked through the jungle) carried no such risk to the kidnapped girls. If their histrionics result in successful government action, they will be praised for their wisdom and courage in making sure the girls were rescued.

Make no mistake, heaping praise on women for making pouty/angry faces and threatening to run into the jungle naked is exactly what we will see if the kidnapped girls are rescued. Feminists will celebrate the wisdom of women, and conservatives will stand reaffirmed in their faith in men (provided they are given a proper wake-up call).

292 Responses to #poutyface

Unleash the First Legion of Empowered Fembots…we men will be poolside waiting for their return. Maybe we’ll save them a sausage for their triumphant return celebrations?

I hear a lot of outrage over the girls taken in the multiple raids, not much about the boys shot trying to escape their burnng dormitories, or burned to death in them, in the second raid. Or the male guards who dies in the raids.

Please get back to me when women start caring about boys and men, until then…leave these fabulous women to it. YOU GO GIRLS

After seeing the sociopathic lack of concern for males endemic to the female of the species, I have stopped listening to them. Let’s see just how empowered they are when they are the ones required to actually do something. Let’s make sure that mass numbers of the MSM are on hand to cover their efforts, let us welcome any sacrifice they make on their mission to prove their much vaunted superpowers.

(How about we value both sexes? How about we address the source of the rebels’ funding? MGTOW – the only sane response for a man without kids)

That pulled-out chair on the left caught my attention. As well as the turned-on lamp. They give the impression that she scribbled that sign whilst sitting there. If factual, I’m mildly impressed. If they are just props to garner her more attention-whoring fawning, I’m even more impressed. Perhaps she’s not as dumb as her Princeton-era rants suggest.

Come on, someone Photoshopped that, right? Someone took a picture of her reading an article about how Sarah Palin’s approval rating is higher than hers, and pasted the look on her face into this, right? Surely the wife of the leader of the most powerful nation in the world didn’t stand in the middle of a room that probably cost more than the daily GDP of Nigeria to redecorate and beg for someone to bring “our” girls back, did she?

Imagine how many more families
would stay together
if Dalrock/Boxer/et al.
didn’t spend day after day
preaching and teaching that
Christ came to abolish the Law of Moses
preaching and teaching that
words have no intrinsic meaning
and can mean anything
at any time
preaching and teaching that
the Great Books for Men
are mere fairy tails
sans meaning, nobility, and Honor
preaching and teaching that
men must learn game
so as to serve da womenz butt and gina tingzlzlzozo
instead of serving Moses, God, and Jesus
and teaching their women to do the same
preaching and teaching that
MArcuse and the Frankfartians freudian frankfurters
are greater than Christ and Home
preaching and teaching, like Cosmo Mag, that
men must learn to serve women’s butt and ginz tziznzgzlzzolzozloz
instead of restoring their homes, schools, and churches
via the manly soul soul of Moses, Jesus, Homer, and Jefferson
exalting the classical soul in contemporary institutions
so that courts no longer destroyed families
but instead served god instead of da dalrockian/boxerian gina tinzgzlzlzozo
Imagine how many more families
would stay together
Imagine how many Fathers would see their children
if Dalrock/Boxer/et al.
didn’t spend day after day
preaching and teaching that men must learn
to treat women like dogs, rather than teaching
men to rise up beyond their baser natures and desires
and truly follow Christ and Moses and Odysseus and Achilles
and live for exalted Honor
rather than cutting down the faith of their fathers
and deconstructing, attacking, belittling
castigating and impugning
the GReat Books for Men.
lzozozollzolzozl

A shame for all Americans. The first lady should have more dignity. Hell, a college graduate should use a more grown-up method of expression. Holding up makeshift placards labelled with internet jargon is unbecoming at best and childish at worst.

Thanks for this, Dalrock. It’s an important topic. If someone, anyone, does anything, it’s fixing to get real messy there, wet messy, real soon. The alternative is “oh well”. Not to be too, um, informedly cynical, but it is likely that they use a significant part of the proceeds from the sales to bribe officials to keep them in business.

It would take a particularly Bad kind of Bad Boy, the kind with a gold-plated heart of darkness, as well as a penis, to overtly bribe the officials, e.g. by giving away military equipment, to permit special forces to go directly to where the kidnappers are holding the girls, and wipe out the beta group members who were deliberately left in charge, because the alpha members were informed ahead of time. In exchange for, say, extra protection racket from them for the Bad Boy’s oil buddies. For example.

The kidnappings are just the latest incident instigated by a group in Northern Nigeria seeking to distance themselves from Westernisation and presumably Christianity for the group which goes by the name of Boko Haram are strict Sharia Islamists who believe in a Heliocentric Universe and do not accept Evolution (views they of course share with many on your side of the Atlantic). One should perhaps put the kidnappings in context by observing that the Nigerian population is over 174,000,000 as against a landmass of over 350,000 square miles. That your First Lady should firstly seek to portray the kidnappings as an American problem is both inaccurate and neo-colonialist as Nigeria is a sovereign nation (a British Colony from 1914-1960) and a member of the [British] Commonwealth. Her implied whitewashing of the various atrocities committed by Boko Haram involving the death of many men and boys – which she does not mention – such as to present it Boko Haram as merely Misogynist should surely be both offensive to American males and Nigerians generally.

Beyond that I will say nothing as I do not wish to involve myself in your politics – and will assume the hashtag is a message to Barry concerning their own daughters who have obviously been taken to the Mall such that he is late with his household chores – but the hashtag placard is number one news item here though doubtless soon to be displaced by this years contest in Euro-trash bad-taste and worse songs.

This is just…. Odd-seeming. Pouty face picture obviously means that her man doesn’t have her reigned in. He is a weak leader, after all. And the hashtag is saying that Nigerian women are the possession of the United States?, “OUR girls”? Naked walk reminds me of slut walks. How base natured are they. And Artisianal Toad makes a valid point.
On another note, the wreckage post was golden. Thanks for posting it, and my thanks given to all the commenters there. And for good measure I will mention that I am glad that my consciousness isn’t a thoroughly emotional one.

Article is spot on, my friend! However, there’s one point you might want to reevaluate.

“As absurd as threatening to go naked into a snake infested jungle in order to punish kidnappers and rapists may sound, there is some logic here. First of course is the fact that they have no intention of actually doing such a thing, and if they did they would be careful not to venture far enough to place themselves in real danger.”

Keep in mind that Nigeria is not far from Liberia and Sierra Leone. This is a part of the world where people like General Butt Naked and General No Hands operated. This is where whole units would go into battle naked or wearing wigs and carrying ladies purses, after having performed human sacrificial rituals, believing these things would make them impervious to bullets. Do not doubt these women will go naked in the jungle.

It seems like only a short time ago, certain cultural figures were expressing concern that the USA was becoming TOO powerful, arrogant even. Why we were going to be the next Roman Empire. No one seems to worry about excess American power any more.

galloper6- “It seems like only a short time ago, certain cultural figures were expressing concern that the USA was becoming TOO powerful, arrogant even. Why we were going to be the next Roman Empire. No one seems to worry about excess American power any more.”

American power is only a problem when used in service of American interests. When used against American interests there are no complaints.

Nigeria isn’t really a predominant Muslim country. It’s a country divided between Sub-Saharan Black West African religious tribalists (black religion), Christians (evangelical/charismatics) and Muslims. Michelle Obama wants to blame Islam for this, but I think we all know deep down inside that this happens whenever blacks are a majority such as Congo, South Africa, Nigeria and even black cities in the USA such as Detroit. The genetic environment is generally chaotic and barbaric.

Bro-in-law, screeching hog-wife and 2 luvverly wite babies only made it back to Blighty after a forced march through the jungle, and an unscheduled and lengthy sunbathing sojourn on some sort on an offshore tethered barge or pontoon. (B-i-L was absolutely made up about it, once he was safely back in the Waggon&Horses, gave him something in common with his dad the WWII artillery captain and malaria statistic. The forced-march&jungle bit, that is; I doubt they were short of slap-up meals, medical attention, and were not subject to arbitrary beheadings, unlike Pater’s pals).

Oh, how tedious, I hear you cry .. fret not darlings, the point is, Luvverly children had to leave behind : [item] pink littlegirl ballerina dresses : [item] rubbery MiniBoglins heads about the size of real South American one, and some other action figure dollies ; [item] Mater’s fright-wigs(which she thinks are Perfectly Normal).

To see them resurface on Channel 4 News, recombined in strange, non-intended and quite counterintuitive ways, by the noble drug-mashed soldiery of the Gold Coast and so on was really rather inspiring. And tragic.

Carpet-bomb the jungle with ectoplasm and werewolves. Then sequins and nail varnish. Should get a result. Because they’re just .. like that ..

Boko Haram recently killed 300 people, but that didn’t get nearly as much media attention or organised disgust as the kidnapping of 250 girls. Boko Haram will learn three lessons: (1) the idea of selling a girl into sexual slavery for $12 causes more outrage than actually killing her; (2) if their purpose is terrorism, they will do less killing, and more kidnapping of girls; (3) men and boys are expendable and can be killed or mistreated with minimum consequences.

Since no one here has yet asked the most obvious question (OT as it may be), let me be the first: in exactly which alternate universe, operating under even the most convoluted of logic, would this affair that has the First Ho’s panties in such a twist be even remotely the concern of the United States government? If she wants to gather up an assembly of her fellow pantherettes and charter a flight to Nigeria at some private citizen’s personal expense (having been leeches on the public dole for their entire lives, the First Ho and her “companion” have no “personal expenses”) and protest, march, chant, and play benevolent saviours to young Third World girls once they get there, then that’s fine. Just leave the American taxpayers out of it!

Tangentially related, but some readers here may find a Radix Journal article from several weeks ago of interest: THE SISTERHOOD OF THE HASHTAG DOCTRINE. The topic is Russia rather than Nigeria, but you’ll notice the parallels.

“Now former First Lady Michelle Obama displays a message pleading with her now-ex-husband, President Barack Obama, to return the couple’s two daughters, of whom he has seized sole custody in the wake of his summary divorce of the now-ex-Mrs. Obama.

“Apparently making the decision to exercise his now limitless Executive Authority for personal uses, Mr. Obama drew upon the religious and legal tenets of his ancestral Muslim faith to summarily divorce Michelle, with Vice President Joe “Living Brain Donor” Biden and Attorney General Eric “Constitution? What constitution?” Holder as witnesses.

“Look, this is the new Amerika, one where it isn’t just dead old white men’s laws and religion that applies, Holder told a White House press conference. “The President told me that he just ‘got sick and tired of that whiny bitch’s bullshit’ and wanted her gone. As a Muslim man, that’s his right. After all, hasn’t most of white America been harping on the fact that he’s a not-so-closet Muslim? So why then would this surprise them?”

Meanwhile, Holder, acting as the President’s attorney, has presented the Former First Lady with a court order, issued and signed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, ordering her to vacate the White House within seven days.

“Shock. I’m in shock,” the First Lady sobbed when confronted by reporters. “How could do this to me? I don’t really mind him taking his balls back, but my daughters? He has no right!”

Well, while all these Leftist twits are hashtagging, Cameron has indicated that the SAS are off on a slaver hunt. With a few simple rules of engagement: as I said elsewhere, killing the slavers should be on the table.
Commonwealth forces have a lot of practice at doing things like this: the skills we had when we were an empire have not got that rusty.
But… the Commonwealth tradition is to just sent the lads in, do the job, and keep quiet.

Well at least the Obamas are giving the United States a very public view of a committed, dedicated, traditional family. And thus far no reports of Barack womanizing like Bill did, even though, given his relatively young age and handsome looks (what to speak of the highest status in the world) he could have his pick.

Under Hillary Clinton and Obama, Boko Haram was not considered a terrorist group even though they knew. I guess Obama’s Moslem cousins feeling might be hurt. Michelle said in her speech “They are our daughters”!?!? I am not sure they would want her for their “mother”. Trayvon is more like your son than these girls your daughters. Let’s pray for their safe return.

There is a pattern of nazbol misandry in the man-o-sphere.
Someone writes about a problem with the wimmin,often the problem with no name,and sure enough first comes the NAWALT bird yelping SHE is so grateful she found a man that would lead her away from her natural inclinations.
(denial of agency)

Then come the remnants of the blue pill from the red pill men,the bitter dregs from the bottom of the barrel:
“Yes men Do – do it too,by golly she is right,it is up to MEN to fix the wimmin problem,after all the helpless dears are not responsible for their actions nor able to take agency nor account,by golly if it was not for the MEN allowing these wimmin to run rampant by God we would have order.
I read the latest one today, some “alpha” something or other Game site, sure enough,the MEN must fix the wimminis nagging,because nagging is killing men at an accelerated rate.

How about a bit cup of shut-the-fuck-up for the wimmin,including the NAWALT bird about to land saying how’s she’s different,mostly because she found an ALPHA male to take her agency for her non-accountable ass.

Apologies for the cussing,but seeing this infection of misandry spread in the red-pill zone is really pissing me.

Elspeth

You can find traces of what I’m saying here encoded in GBFM’s odd style,and also the old hand anon 71 (72?)
They rail against the misandry,perhaps by instinct,or genuine realization of the nazbol effect.

This thing with the first lady really shows it well,the hens cluck and raise the hoops,and the”good men” jump higher like a good
trained animal.

All it takes it a complaining or weeping woman and the world stops to wipe her ass for her.

Even if she does have direct access to the most powerful man on the planet.

On a side note,we have no business doing nothing on the other side of the world,we have our own problems.
On another side note: It sucksss how the doxxing jackals took down SSM,unfair,we fight ideas not people,she was a big proponent of nazbol misandry,but losing an opponent to someone else’s terrorism is a hollow victory.

I would have rather argued the cases indefinitely.

Now go get a big cup of woman-up, the real men are no longer itching to meet your unrealistic expectations.

Damn there’s some good writers here:
“Carpet-bomb the jungle with ectoplasm and werewolves. Then sequins and nail varnish.”
“Gold-plated heart of darkness.”
(an impossibility,it would seem,but a really cool thing to say.)

A good example of institutionalized nazbol misandry would be ROQ.
I think it’s ghost written by male gamers.
Yep, all the gals need to be fixed is the right alpha male to possess their agency for them.
Damn shame the alpha males can’t actually get up in their brains and run them like automatons.
(I dislike control freaks to a large degree,sure sign of NPD.)
Game is seduction, pure and simple,and all the wimmin want it, as it centers attention upon *their* desires.
Except they want ALL they men seducing and obeying them,not just the one with the alleged monogamous access to that severely over valued asset.
Not gonna be your hand-servant and pretend I’m a better man than the fellow who keeps himself out of bondage.
There’s no slave like a willing slave.
They may not even realize how they sold themselves, like
Esau.

” That your First Lady should firstly seek to portray the kidnappings as an American problem is both inaccurate and neo-colonialist as Nigeria is a sovereign nation (a British Colony from 1914-1960) and a member of the [British] Commonwealth. ”

Just a heads up, your comments stink of desperation. Be it desperation for male attention or just desperation for attention from anyone at all. If you’re going to troll you’ll want to be a bit more subtle, not so needy. Personally, from your comments I’m picturing you as a 300 pound shut-in somewhere south of the border that no man would ever take a second look at but that’s just me. As a troll you know it’s probably time now to open a new username or maybe you should go away for awhile or just go away. Hope that helps.

Entirely predictably this year’s Euro-Trash Contest was won by a bearded lady from Austria – where’s a National Socialist when you need one! No matter how bad things may appear to be in America, there is nothing, neither ‘creepy’ Purity Balls or Pouty Hashtag bearers, who sink as low as do Europeans.

I wish. This product of Original White Guilt costs us a fortune, and the money just ends up in the pocket of the local thugs and thugettes. Not being a believer in OWG, I think we should just leave them to screwing each other over without our cash.

The Commonwealth is merely a rebranded – so as not to upset America and so as to brandish our newly-acquired Democratic credentials – name-change for The Empire. We assumed that no one would notice; the ploy seems to have worked. Perhaps we will strike back in Nigeria [cue music – you know the tune].

Someone should hand Michelle a rifle, so she can get dem girls out there. Maybe even give her her own squadron full of girrrrrrrrrrl-power, and show those stupid men how girls can do anything men can do.

I saw an interview with SirBob who gave his expert (dosser’s ?) opinion on the causes of this…not a word about religion. Nope! All about poverty, it seems.

I have just been listening to Nicholas Kristal on Farid Zakaria. It turns out that this is not a Muslim thing and Christians are just as likely to kidnap sex slaves. Of course Kristal did not refer to his own religion in his little speech.

The things you learn on the mainstream media.

I think this is something to sit out. If NOW wants to send a crack team of Lesbian parachutists to rescue these poor girls, I will be happy to cheer for them. But if they don’t want my type in peacetime, they can get by without me in wartime.

It’s hardly surprising – the poverty – ever since Sir Bob persuaded you all to part with your hard earned dollars the population of Ethiopia has doubled. They may be starving but clearly they are also screwing. Same goes for Nigeria I would guess.

Should we really be surprised here? Michelle Obama is a stout feminist (when convenient).

As Dalrock pointed out in an older article, the President was given a chance to complain about Michelle in a Barbara Walters interview when Walters asked if he kept a ‘list of things’ that bothered him about Michelle.

The President took the high road, and said “I don’t have a list”.

Walters then asked Michelle the same question, to which she snidely responded “My list is too long!”

I’m sure feminists far and wide snapped their fingers and cooed “You Go Girrrrllll!!!” The show of ‘moxy’ was viewed by women as a sign of power.

In reality, it was disrespectful, childish, inappropriate, and pedestrian.

I often feel sorry for Barack Obama. I’m sure his life as a child was an unimaginable hell, as his skank-ho single mom yanked him by the arm on her trans-world adventures, hopping alpha cock after alpha cock. (I’m not exaggerating, she really was a disgusting piece of shit).

Michelle Obama had a very nice body when she was an early 20something. I imagine she found old Barack easy to latch on to (she probably gave him his first blow job) and she’s been riding his coattails ever since.

She has had such a long history of utter disrespect for him (storming out of official formal events, making big scenes when he takes selfies with other world leaders, keeping separate bedrooms and moving her old granny mother into the white house, etc. etc.) that I’m sorry he can’t be a trailblazer and get the first presidential divorce while in office. No one would more deserve getting a boot in her ass than that bitch. When (not if) he finally grows a pair and dumps her sorry ass into the gutter, I’m going to send him a “congratulations” card.

What’s really sad is the lessons this is teaching his two little girls. Generations of dysfunction in the making.

Michelle Obama had a very nice body when she was an early 20something.

Michelle Obama would be a beautiful woman if she wasn’t … well, if she wasn’t Michelle Obama. I think all us, sadly, know more than a few female humans in the western world who would be beautiful ladies if they weren’t members of the ball-busting feminist herd.

This kind of crud makes me want to throw up. First, this has nothing to do about being “anti-girl” or “anti-woman.” This is Muslims attacking Christians, and doing it by ways that hurts them most, attacking their children, in this case, stealing and raping their daughters and then either killing them or selling this into sex slavery. But they have routinely attacked and killed boys, as well as one of their other favorite entertainments, burning down, blowing up and machine-gunning churches while people are inside worshiping.

This has been going on for 10 years or more in Nigeria, and yet our government totally ignores it because it doesn’t fit their narrative about the “Religion of Peace.” Second, the Christians in Nigeria will tell you one of the biggest anti-Christian items spread by Muslim militants about Christians in Nigeria is that they are tools of the decadent corrupt churches in the West, and therefore embrace things like homosexuality. Even the archbishop of Canterbury has admitted that the sexual anarchy that controls the leftist Anglican western churches has had severe repercussions on Anglican Christians in Africa.

“Whoever rescues those girls–if anyone does–ought to be given those girls as wives and daughters.”

They already have parents, don’t they? And of course if mutual attraction and romance blossoms between individual rescuers and rescuees, as long as they are both of legal age it, would make for much global heartwarming (and a nice, feel-good movie).

And of course if mutual attraction and romance blossoms between individual rescuers and rescuees, as long as they are both of legal age it, would make for much global heartwarming (and a nice, feel-good movie).

I, too, would have my heart warmed by a movie about women who were given into the care of competent and brave men; to care for those men’s households, bear their children, etc. Mutual attraction is a luxury in a society where a small group of men can carry off 250 young women on a whim. As for romance: It will blossom in its time; provided those women are dedicated to living out the debt they would owe to such men.

Life experience has taught me that real honesty is not always the best policy. I have worked for government, private sector, and even for politicians on election campaign teams. I know about social and workplace politics. You are going to get eaten alive if you are not even a little machiavellian. The public relations, marketing, politics games, are all about who can pull a fast one the best, all smoke and mirrors, poker bluffing games. All the sneaky tactics are occasionally backed up by ruthless brute force. You really have to capable of being an asshole in order to survive in the modern world. Your friends and enemies can be the same people, act and plan accordingly. You will mutually use each other for gains.

“I, too, would have my heart warmed by a movie about women who were given into the care of competent and brave men; to care for those men’s households, bear their children, etc. Mutual attraction is a luxury in a society where a small group of men can carry off 250 young women on a whim. As for romance: It will blossom in its time; provided those women are dedicated to living out the debt they would owe to such men.”

So then you agree with me about traditional multi-generational family living in which there is little privacy for young couples and their desires (particularly for sex and the “space” required for it) are subsumed into the larger good of the large family who arranges their marriages.

Good. A few of the other commenters nearly took me out for it. And they claimed to be “traditional” too!

“I, too, would have my heart warmed by a movie about women who were given into the care of competent and brave men”

Well these are school girls we’re talking about here, not women. I highly doubt either side wants to take on a life long relationship with someone they don’t know and who may come from a completely different culture, religion and world view. Their values about many things may even be at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Marriage and family formation works best between people from the same culture, religion and world view, and values system. That’s a very traditional, even “archaic” view and I stand by it 100%. I’ll also add socio-economic class to the mix (which I’ve also been dragon-breathed over by a few commenters on this blog). Call me a classist snob and a bigot. I don’t mind.

“They already have parents, don’t they?”

“And?”

And you wrote, “Whoever rescues those girls–if anyone does–ought to be given those girls as wives and DAUGHTERS.”

Why would you want to see them further separated from their real parents? Those parents are in enough pain right now without their children. You don’t want to see their children returned to them but instead “given” over to strangers as parents? For what purpose?

Furthermore, it is sickening to observe certain prominent people selectively use these tragic events to advance themselves and their agendas while at the same time exporting feminism, abortion, and homosexuality into third world countries.

Below are links to some examples.

“The feminist tyranny instituted within India’s family-related laws has now caused Indian family and men’s associations to react to the destruction of rights it causes. These protesting groups recognize the feminist tyranny’s system. ”

“On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama released a statement about wanting to reduce the need for abortion. When he overturns the Mexico City Policy, however, he will be increasing them around the world. And we will all be Ugly Americans.”

“The documentary provides insight into how the Obama administration “blackmails” the poorer, developing countries into implementing laws and policies that advance hyper-sexualized “ethics” into their cultures by threatening to withhold aid.”

Whoever rescues those girls–if anyone does–ought to be given those girls as wives and daughters. That is a fitting reward for everyone.

Deputize the kidnappers then. Cheap and simple.

Maunalani says:

This kind of crud makes me want to throw up. First, this has nothing to do about being “anti-girl” or “anti-woman.”

Have you told Ms Obama that? The First Lady did not mention Islam or Muslims once. She did describe them as men. She views this through the prism of Girl Power – all about inept, threatened men lashing out at empowered young women on their way to the top.

I agree these girls are innocent victims. In a sane world, brave men with guns would step up and save them. But if Ms Obama wants to turn this into an outreach program for her anti-male crusade, she can do it without me. These girls need a SEAL Team to rescue them exactly like a fish needs a bicycle.

Second, the Christians in Nigeria will tell you one of the biggest anti-Christian items spread by Muslim militants about Christians in Nigeria is that they are tools of the decadent corrupt churches in the West, and therefore embrace things like homosexuality. Even the archbishop of Canterbury has admitted that the sexual anarchy that controls the leftist Anglican western churches has had severe repercussions on Anglican Christians in Africa.

What Steve Sailor is calling World War G – we are, apparently, going to use the West’s armed forces to make everyone love Gays and transsexuals. Well, that is another fight they can leave me out of.

I’m sure the people who will rescue them (and lets hope it happens soon, if this is a genuine incident and not some sort of Kony scam or psy-op), will do so like the vast majority of rescue people do their work: out of a desire to help and do good in the world. Not out of a selfish desire to get sex or anything at all from the victims.

“…concerned women have threatened to converge in Lagos and other parts of the country and later proceed to Borno State, from where they would walk naked into the forest in search of the students.”

A solution seems quite obvious, though it may involve a gruesome, horrifying conclusion.
Once this idea is publicly declared, key governments could latch onto it. Governments could expressly call for this action, with the John McCains and Chuck Schumers and Ted Cruzs alike all raising their voices in unison alongside grrl-power sens Warren, Murray, Mikulski, etc.

Then the wheels on the hamster will *really* start going round and round. Practically DEMAND this asinine action be carried out to completion when the women start waffling in light of the govts’ cosigning of *their* idea – already have some very rudimentary ‘funding’ and ‘resources’ dedicated to the cause.

“Oh no – We’ve already jumped on board ladies, can’t back out now! That would be weak, that would be submissive, that would damage our credibility and foreign relations and all that important stuff that you say you’d do such a better job of leading.”

Throw up our hands and say ‘Go for it! We haven’t tried your way before. We’ll quell ‘our way’ this time and let y’all have at it for once. We’ll remain in suspended disbelief while you give it your best show. Godspeed!’

Rescue people don’t work for free. They must be compensated. It matters not who or how but someone not involved in the rescue, not related to the victims, is going to get the bill.

Even firefighters go on strike, and they usually don’t get shot at.

Perhaps those most concerned should raise the money, beginning with spending their own, to hire a private military contractor to affect a rescue. Let those who care the most put their money where their feels are.

No other first lady was this mediocre. No one else in the world, through sheer luck, elevated to a life of fame and glory for having less than zero merit on her own. To top it off, she was never even good looking (not even in her youth).

” To top it off, she was never even good looking (not even in her youth).”

She’s very fit and always has been (from the photos I’ve googled). She’s taken some very bad pics but some really lovely ones as well, and I think her younger photos are cute. Hillary was cute in her college days also. Sure they were not great beauties but who amongst American first ladies were? Jackie O Kennedy got fawned over, but damn she had an odd, asymmetrical face. What was all the fuss about?

The 3 American presidents that are/were considered goodlooking; Clinton, Kennedy and Obama are nothing to write home about either.

she is fugly. her face is very masculine, that of an ugly man. many first ladies have been mediocre like michelle but they had the good sense of not wanting to be the protagonist. michelle is like the average american woman, incompetent, unattractive and full of herself

My god the woman is fifty and her skin is tight, smooth (face and body), practically wrinkle free and she is very physically fit. She is above average looking for an American her age. Way above, I would say. See here;

She does have a chin and teeth thing going on. Overbite? But I don’t find it too distracting. The rest of her face I at least find attractive, particularly for a middle aged woman. The only thing I don’t like is her unnatural hair. I don’t like artificially straightened hair or weaves. She should rock an afro, braids, twists or locs. She looked good in her twenties with the natural close cropped hair that looks attractive on many black women (but generally not other women).

To top it off, she was never even good looking (not even in her youth).

While such things are partly a matter of taste, I must disagree. She was a gymnast, with a slim waist, nice rack, and legs that went forever. Even in the old grainy prom photo I dug up on google (i.e. before she hit her prime — as an 18-year old kid) she was goodlookin.

I’ve personally always loved the afro look myself but it says here that in 1910 Madame CJ Walker made the Guinness Book of World Records as the first American female self-made millionaire. Her business? Hair care products to meet the needs of African hair. I’ve never heard of this woman. It says her other name (legal name I guess) was Sarah Breedlove. Breedlove is an odd last name. Breed love. Could have something to do with breeding slaves?

There is so much that could be done to get these girls back, so much. There is literally 1,000,000+ conservative American men who would (on their own dime I might add) fly to Africa with their own fire arms and would volunteer to case all of Africa until they found them and rescued them if (and only if) the President asked men to step up and volunteer. I would be willing to do it were it not for my own family that needs me here working to put food on the table. But were I not encumbered by a family, I would take time off from work and do this. To me, that is the Christian thing to do. A true mission call if you will.

I’m not saying this would be easy, but finding men to step up would not be hard were it not for the politics of shaming men. Just stop with all the “man up” shaming, and I truly believe the world would be surprised how much a happier (and safer) place it would be for all of us.

Hopefully, BP. I’d MUCH rather see a million conservative American men shooting anything human that tries to come over the Southern border. (That tries to build a NOW center or mosque would be possible good candidates, too…)

Now perhaps there is some residual racism involved. But there is something else too – Whites can say virtually nothing about Blacks without being accused of racism. So if a child goes missing and someone says the obvious – like what was she doing out so late, where was her mother etc etc – it would take seconds for cries of racism to appear.

So sensible Whites say, if they want to solve this problem, they are on their own. In the same way, I was perfectly willing to be outraged, as one human being concerned about 200 or so other human beings …. until Michelle made it about the Gender Wars. Until she made this about Men versus Women.

The Obamas have waged a long campaign against people like me. They have tried to keep us out of the military. They have kicked us out if we say the obvious – like women should not be soldiers. So, fine, good for them. Now they have a problem which cannot be dealt with by pouty faces and consciousness raising. Now they need tough men with guns. Who, as it happens, are invariably White in the Western Armed forces. I wish them luck. But they can do it without me. They can send the crack 13th Diversity-enriched Airborne Division made up of Pyjama boy and that fat chick from Girls.

The world in general is a mess. The Earth needs a New World Order one world Dictator with total power and free reign to do whatever and anything in order to bring peace, order, and a secure society. Anyone short of having the personality of Emperor Palpatine or Darth Vader is unfit to become this one world ruler. There is way too much blindly bumping around and not getting much done in terms of concrete results. This world needs a hard ass dictator so bad because only such a person is capable of “getting things done”.

Not being an American, and not a first recognising who the person holding the sign was, i first assumed it was an Amercan woman protesting against the lethagy of the Amercan government. When I read who it was i became confused. Is she protesting against her husband’s government? What exactly is the point of this? Has she divorced her husband and is trying to distance herself from him in some way. American politics is quite confusing.

How deliciously American: [a long time ago] in a continent far far away some 200 girls were kidnapped, presumably to prevent them from being fed western liberal propaganda and so IBB volunteers to lead the seventh cavalry to rout these pesky Muslims and bring mother and apple pie to Nigeria.

Whatever the logistical problems, it is a Nigerian problem and whether the problem is Malthusan as Sir Bob suggests or Religious as seems more plausible, an American response is neither welcome nor required; indeed it can only inflame the situation.

UNCIEF see it as being about female education and in a way they are correct. Muslims do not approve of the pro-homosexual agenda foisted on the them as being normal nor do they much care for Feminism and removing the girls from the school will at least for now end their exposure to anti-male pro-queer agenda, which it seems comes as much from religious as secular authorities.

Up above I mentioned a bearded lady: that bearded lady is actually a man with a penis and is the second transvestite to have won Eurovision ( a song-contest which has degenerated over fifty years to a ‘a gay night out’ and where the quality of the songs, if there is any, is always out-staged by the excess of the costumes, such that only singers whose careers are tanking and non-entities hoping it will provide them with a platform will have anything to do with it). After his win the transvestite proclaimed, breathlessly, that ‘we are unstoppable’ by which he meant that compulsory homosexuality was now unstoppable; the booing for Russia during the voting was aimed at their policy of preventing children from being indoctrinated with homosexualism – a policy incidentally identical to that in this country in the days of Prime Minister Thatcher (and Major). Of course the good people at the Daily Mail are outraged.

Twitter campaigns like this are just the latest in a long-running process to let people believe they’re accomplishing something without actually having to do anything. I remember when people wanted us to drive with our headlights on in the daytime to “raise awareness” or some other inane drivel back in the 1980s. I also remember seeing protestors sitting outside military installations holding signs. They were exercising their First Amendment rights but accomplishing exactly nothing. Signing Internet petitions is another equally ineffective thing to do. It’s unlikely anyone in that terrorist group is going to read your Tweet or Facebook page and suddenly say, “You know, they’re right! Kidnapping those girls and selling them into slavery is wrong! We must release them immediately!”

The story has it all. It’s easy to tell. The bad guys are very bad, The victims won’t turn out to be demons. Throw in corrupt, and ineffectual government, race, Africa, jungles, lions and tigers, Christians vs. Muslims and it’s perfect. So much drama. Since journalists are lazy, not terribly smart, love the sensational, and tend to be leftists naturally this a good story for them. They get to sell the idea of “War on Women,” Africa a continual victim, and no reaction will be appropriate. My guess is those reporting this say a quick prayer every night for rescue to be delayed or for pile of dead girls to sell the story.

UNCIEF see it as being about female education and in a way they are correct. Muslims do not approve of the pro-homosexual agenda foisted on the them as being normal nor do they much care for Feminism and removing the girls from the school will at least for now end their exposure to anti-male pro-queer agenda, which it seems comes as much from religious as secular authorities.

Vox Day has argued that progressives have “weaponized” these girls, and a recent Op Ed at the NYT would seem to agree:

All of us can respond more directly. Boko Haram, whose name means roughly “Western education is a sin,” is keeping women and girls marginalized; conversely, we can help educate and empower women. Ultimately, the greatest threat to extremism isn’t a drone overhead but a girl with a book.

According to our First Lady, the girls were so full of feminist empowerment they traveled to the school even though it was closed due to terrorist threat:

“Their school had recently been closed due to terrorist threats, but these girls insisted on returning to take their exams,” she said. “They were so determined to move to the next level of their education, so determined to one day build careers of their own.”

This would appear to be yet another case of weak men screwing feminism up. The narrative being:

These girls had the moxie to defy the security directives of their government; why can’t the men in their government now step up and provide security for them?

#poutyface

These girls are being used as pawns in an effort to transform a part of Nigeria where the government has at best tenuous grips on power. I don’t have the link handy One of the news sources stated that the locals are afraid to travel on the roads out of fear of Boko Haram. I pray that they are able to rescue all of these girls, but I also pray they will stop the cruelty of using girls to fight a proxy war against a vicious group which is the real power on the ground in the region.

She may be married to the President of the US, but certainly isn’t a “Lady” by any stretch of the imagination. Of course that is par for the course, as her husband is anything but “presidential”, regardless of the position he may hold…

Pathetic incompetents would be a more apt description of both in my opinion – of course today, that would be considered “Hate Speech” by the Looney Left…

“A shame for all Americans. The first lady should have more dignity. Hell, a college graduate should use a more grown-up method of expression. Holding up makeshift placards labelled with internet jargon is unbecoming at best and childish at worst.”

You mean kind of like then-sitting President Nixon, taping a quick “Sock it to ME??” for the old comedy/variety show “Laugh-In”?

Oh, so sad. She needs to go on another expensive vacation to an exotic locale to take her mind of it.

This is the natural result of “leading from behind”: hashtags in the face of evil. Don’t send hashtags: send special forces. And don’t hold a press conference to tell these thugs we’re coming. (That was incredibly stupid.) The bad guy’s will figure it out.

President Obama said recently, “We cannot eliminate evil from every heart.”
No, but you can eliminate the heart from evil men. .308 Winchester does the job very efficiently.

@Dalrock re: weaponization and “They were so determined to move to the next level of their education, so determined to one day build careers of their own.”
It is difficult for me to imagine that the government is able to provide boarding schools and advanced physics courses for all children, so presumably these girls were the best and brightest of some region (anyone know how big a region?). In other words, there had been years of extra investment in their education, so much so that undoubtedly these girls were hailed as examples. I haven’t seen any news about this angle, i.e. that presumably there had been press coverage of these girls and this school many times before, making them targets, which should indeed have warranted extra security.

Rather like Mrs Reagan, with her ‘just say no’ campaign. I guess I need not ask how that one turned out for you. Had she recommended punters to ‘just say no thank-you’ the War on Drugs might have been no more effective but would certainly have improved manners – at least that would have been do-able.

One has to feel sorry for First Ladies; pawns in the pointless campaigns of men, but I suppose empowered women have to be given something to do to make them seem important and effective. If you ever have another President Clinton, let’s see what can be dreamt up for the then consort – just keep him away from young interns.

Not that I am trying to mock; we are familiar with the problem: the gaff-prone Duke of Edinburgh (‘people think that the class-system is set in stone but some Dukes have been known to marry chorus girls, some even Americans’ as well as his ‘this must be Feminist Corner’ to a group of female M.P.s at one of his wife’s Garden Parties) was made President of The World Wildlife Fund – not much can go wrong with being pro-Panda – and perhaps that position will become usefully vacant ere long; Mr Thatcher wisely said little and did less.

” In a sane world, brave men with guns would step up and save them.” Maybe that is madness or just plain “unicorn fairy land. Maybe those girls aren’t worth the effort. Maybe in a sane world they world as the Chinese leader offered Nixon A few thousand women a gift for America. The sad thing and most likely good thing is America is going to be poor enough for reality and sanity to be primary motivators and guides for action.
As The Querl Xoralundra put it when he commented previously, reality is getting more obvious. Even the Chateau Heartiste had a thing to say about this. Mirrors what I have been saying the last couple years. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/a-banana-republic-if-you-can-reap-it/

IBB said There is literally 1,000,000+ conservative American men who would (on their own dime I might add) fly to Africa with their own fire arms and would volunteer…

In response Luke asked ”Satire?

No, unfortunately. IBB is sincere in his own deluded tradcon way. The essential thing to remember is that tradcons, like their liberal compatriots, define words differently than we non-ideologues do. For example, when he talks about “volunteers,” he means “active duty U.S. military forces who enlisted of their own free will, without the threat of conscription hanging over their heads, and who by enlisting agreed to act as the president’s mercenary army, to be used at his whim for whatever purposes he chooses.” When he talks about them traveling “on their own dime,” he means times “donated” to them for that purpose by the American taxpayers. Since American military personnel are also taxpayers, it’s their “own dime” that’s funding their travel, right? Ditto for the weapons they’ll use to free those poor girls from those dark, savage terrists who hate freedom (or who hate it in a way that’s radically diffetent from the way in which Amerikan tradcons hate it, which is just unacceptable). Since the taxpayers’ money purchased the weapons they’ll use to free the girls from the freedom-hating terrists, and since, as has already been pointed out, military personnel are taxpayers, they’ll be using their “own” weapons that they bought with their “own” money.

See how nicely it’s all so clearly explained? Of course the only fly in the ointment is that current president is a liberal Democrat…

@Feeriker
I find it more amusing to believe that it was the female half of team IBB logging in to volunteer her hubby for an extended (permanent?) overseas trip…perhaps she’s sick of the old duffer too?

Beyond that? I love the idea of such tradcons putting themselves in harm’s way. I firmly believe that the man-up brigade cannot be made to recognise reality (they are too far gone), best they act as bullet catchers and leave the world to those that can recognise women for what they currently are (as opposed to what they mythically used to be).

It used to be said that “Science advances one funeral at a time” (Max Planck), it seems that the red-pill effort to save civilisation does that too.

Are you sure she is not doing exactly what her husband wants her to do?
From my understanding, they are a very modern couple, who both use Twitter a lot. Not my cup of tea, this social networking stuff, but even I understand that a couple in the public eye such as them have to use it.

Mrs. Obama is in a tenuous position here. BECAUSE she is a mother (especially to GIRLS), she MUST be seen to be lending her voice to this episode. I wonder if Mr. Obama put her up to this? As a father of girls, it would make sense for him to get his wife to do this. Is this a reasonable argument?
Much as he lent his own voice to the Trayvon Martin case, calling the boy *his* son, it makes sense for Mrs. Obama to take on the case for *the girls*. It helps his cause as President if his wife takes on a *humanitarian* role irrespective of whatever else is going on on the political level. I would have thought this is wifely submission at its best, no?
What is your evidence that she is doing something that he opposes?
(Bear in mind that I am still learning the ‘dos and dont’s’ of the wife’s end of marriage. So far, I haven’t been adequately convinced of your angle here, and I put it down to a lack of understanding of what your exact point is).

To someone else who mentioned that many boys have been killed or tortured by this Boko Haram group and no-one took any notice…
Sigh…

That cannot be the fault of the average man or woman in The West…
The delay in response is proportional to the speed with which one receives the news. Having said that, it is appalling that this group has also tortured boys, no question about that!

This whole Boko Haram story is only just gathering momentum now. The world is just waking up to them – whether it’s what they have done to boys or girls. This kidnapping story happened at Easter, and the world is only waking up to it now. I agree that the fact that it is girls (this time) has galvanised the story somewhat (not to talk of the sheer shock factor of such a huge number of girls taken in one go).

The media has been generally slow to publicise this particular story, I guess because it is a ‘closed’ society in the North of Nigeria. True confession: I went to boarding school in Nigeria (in the Christian South) for 2 years, so this story is close to my heart. (No, I am not from there – my parents did some expat work there for a while).
I can tell you that there is zero security in (boarding) schools in Nigeria. Any child in those schools is a sitting duck. I as a foreigner was at a particular risk. There were times when both my parents were out of the country. Scary experience. Also, boarding school in Nigeria is considered ‘elitist’. If one is against education for girls (as Boko Haram do), then a BOARDING SCHOOL education for girls is like a red rag to a bull.

Also, (and this is what no-one here has admitted to so far): raising girls is a whole different ball-game from raising boys, as you are well aware of, as a father. I need not spell this out, but no-one has touched on this delicate subject yet. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.

In both cases of kidnap of a child, death of that child is a risk, yes. These girls could well end up dead. I sincerely hope not, but the risk is high (as indeed it was for the boys).

But, the additional risk of rape of girls is the worry that these girls’ parents are crying about right now. In a traditional society like Nigeria if a woman arrives at marriage-age as a non-virgin, her life is OVER before it has begun. They are not as tolerant of non-virgin brides as is the case in the West. Those mothers are not worried that their daughters may have been killed. Believe me, I understand Nigerian culture very well. They are worried that their daughters have been defiled by these thugs. That before anyone gets close enough to rescuing them, they would be pregnant, or have been ‘tampered with’.

THIS is why people are concerned. THIS is why parents of daughters worry about girls, seemingly more than boys. This is a separate issue from misandry against boys (I concede that that exists in this corrupt world). I have several friends who, like me have recently married. Most of these friends want baby boys, not girls, purely because, as one male friend put it, ‘I would worry myself to an early grave before my time, with girls’. I am beginning to understand this sentiment…

In a place like Nigeria, no-one would be sexually molesting boys. They don’t do ‘homo’, to put it bluntly. The parents of these girls would see the *potential* rape of their girls as a fate worse than death, for the reasons I have alluded to above. If you haven’t lived in that part of the world, you are simply oblivious to the degree of stigma of a woman defiled. It is NOTHING like it is in The West. It is unforgiving in the extreme, irrespective of the cause. Rape victims are treated the same as sluts in that part of the world. The parents know this very well, which is why they are crying.
And it is not as if these men who have kidnapped them can be trusted not to commit what they are threatening. They have already alluded to sexual ramifications for the girls…

There are many atrocities in the world, and it is great to see that people are lending their fame/money/voice to these causes. This is why I see nothing wrong with Mrs. Obama’s efforts.

She necessarily has to react in the way she can. And she has. A woman cannot fight these islamic militants head-on. In fact, that would add flames to the fire, as unlike in the West, women are considered ‘not a match’ for the men. (A good thing, in my humble opinion). So why is Mrs. Obama wrong in leaving the ‘brute force’ method to her husband and the other men, while she helps publicise this matter in a more feminine way?

Where I think I am missing your message is this: are you advocating that she does her bit in a more masculine way? I am not sure if you are saying that she should try herself what ‘someone with a penis’ is capable of doing. Or that she does nothing at all…I beg for clarity on this.

“If someone (someone with a penis) tries and fails, she can point out that of course that plan wasn’t the plan she had in mind all along. If someone (with a penis) tries and succeeds, she and all of the other women in the campaign can take credit for the success.”

This seems like predicting a crime that hasn’t yet happened. Perhaps I am being naive, but how do we know that she will do this? Can you give me an example of a precedent so I understand better what you are getting at?

I am trying hard to understand your point of view on this one. But I am getting stuck on several levels. Appreciate another ‘walk-through’ this particular mire…

Now, I appreciate that Mrs. Obama is seen as a not very submissive woman, in general. And ugly to boot. I disagree on both counts, but that’s an aside. If we take this particular twitter thing in isolation, could you outline what exactly she has done wrong here?

I am of the opinion that if The Manosphere is to be proved useful to both men and women, it could serve as a forum for men to discuss what they dislike about women and at the same time serve as a ‘teaching tool’ for women willing to listen to men. Sometimes, as in this case, there are nuances that a woman might not ‘get’, whereas it is ever so obvious to a man.

If (and that’s a big IF) anyone rescues these girls, it’ll be a tightly-knit team of hyper-masculine Western men. In other words, it’ll be the very people Feminists hate most. Ironic, isn’t it?

Given that no good deed, especially one done by men, EVER goes unpunished, we can rest absolutely assured that even if a rescue is pulled off, flawlessly, without even a single serious injury to, let alone death of, a single one of these girls, the armchair fembots and their femenablers will find something to shriek and complain about (a good candidate would be the fact that there were no wimminz in the rescue commando force).

Beyond that? I love the idea of such tradcons putting themselves in harm’s way.

The next time that happens will be the first time. I expect that both the discovery of the Holy Grail and the last surviving unicorn will be take place on the same day before any tradcon puts themselves or their possessions in harm’s way.

From my understanding, they are a very modern couple, who both use Twitter a lot. Not my cup of tea, this social networking stuff, but even I understand that a couple in the public eye such as them have to use it.

Mrs. Obama is in a tenuous position here. BECAUSE she is a mother (especially to GIRLS), she MUST be seen to be lending her voice to this episode. I wonder if Mr. Obama put her up to this?

The #bringbackourgirls campaign is a more technologically advanced version of the women threatening to run through the forest naked. The whole point is to shame someone (with a penis) into action. It is theoretically possible that President Obama decided that sending his wife out with a pouty faced tweet was his best tool of foreign policy and diplomacy. If so, he has deliberately weakened his own position, as having his own wife publicly begging for some big strong man to take action can only make him look hopelessly weak and ineffective. I’m not a fan of the president, but I can’t imagine that he would be that foolish.

It is theoretically possible that President Obama decided that sending his wife out with a pouty faced tweet was his best tool of foreign policy and diplomacy.

More cynically and realistically, he (or more likely, his marionette masters) realized that such a shallow and juvenile stunt is what the marching moron majority best relates to and what will lead them to acerebrally scream for someone in a position of authoritay to “do something!!!!”

I’m not a fan of the president, but I can’t imagine that he would be that foolish.

He, or anyone else in his position, will look as foolish (or as wise) as he’s instructed to do by his handlers. It’s the price he (and all of his predecessors and successors) pay for getting to play (literally) “Leader of the Free [sic] World” for four to eight years and collect a lifetime of perqs afterward. Sacrifice of one’s self-esteem, such as it might be (even in the form of having one’s balls crushed by one’s wife’s high-heeled boot), is a very tiny price to pay for that kind of reward.

Dalrock – re: “The whole point is to shame someone (with a penis) into action.”

The way to deflect the shame so that it boomerangs back is to take their ‘threat’ literally at face value, double down on ‘empowering’ them to do just what they threatened, INSIST that they follow through with it, and then sit back with a tub of popcorn and watch. It seems so simple a solution.

Social Media can be a minefield for Politicians; they want to appear modern and ‘in touch’ but can easily appear impotent.

If I may (by way of example) digress: in the days when I had a Twitter account I naturally followed my Prime Minister because I liked to know what was supposed to be happening and what might be on his mind. The P.M. was also on Foursquare. His handlers were thus checking him in to the places he went. I tweeted back that (with respect) checking in to things like the G8 tended to make him look smaller than the event, which I do not think is a good idea for a would-be world leader – rather as if Napoleon might check-in at Waterloo. Whether my concerned observation had any impact I can not know but I noticed that he ceased to use Foursquare (so far as I could then tell). The people operating his social media are after all only twenty-two year old graduates down from Oxbridge learning the ropes – so to speak.

Perhaps something similar has gone amiss at The White House – where the handlers have failed to see the bigger picture.

I’m not even sure whom the message is directed to. Her type wouldn’t really be happy if a bunch of white American mercenaries went over there and killed a bunch of non-white Muslims to free these girls. As for any official action by the US or Nigerian governments, you’d think she could better achieve that privately. She obviously doesn’t like or respect her husband much, but surely she has better ways to get him to do her bidding than this.

My first impression is that she’s talking to the kidnappers here, trying to appeal to their humanity. After all, all cultures are equal, so surely they’ll realize how wrong this is as soon as someone gets them to think about it. Let’s sing!

No, unfortunately. IBB is sincere in his own deluded tradcon way. The essential thing to remember is that tradcons, like their liberal compatriots, define words differently than we non-ideologues do. For example, when he talks about “volunteers,” he means “active duty U.S. military forces who enlisted of their own free will, without the threat of conscription hanging over their heads, and who by enlisting agreed to act as the president’s mercenary army, to be used at his whim for whatever purposes he chooses.”

No I wasn’t. I was talking about myself. If I were not encumbered, I might go. Otherwise, I could think of quite a few people who would be willing to volunteer to look for these girls WITHOUT being shamed into it. More like a Christian mission than anything else.

Yes I have done various missions before (just never to Africa.)

When he talks about them traveling “on their own dime,” he means times “donated” to them for that purpose by the American taxpayers.

No.

Given that no good deed, especially one done by men, EVER goes unpunished, we can rest absolutely assured that even if a rescue is pulled off, flawlessly, without even a single serious injury to, let alone death of, a single one of these girls, the armchair fembots and their femenablers will find something to shriek and complain about (a good candidate would be the fact that there were no wimminz in the rescue commando force).

Unfortunately yes, this will happen.

Dalrock,

The #bringbackourgirls campaign is a more technologically advanced version of the women threatening to run through the forest naked. The whole point is to shame someone (with a penis) into action.

“It is theoretically possible that President Obama decided that sending his wife out with a pouty faced tweet was his best tool of foreign policy and diplomacy. If so, he has deliberately weakened his own position, as having his own wife publicly begging for some big strong man to take action can only make him look hopelessly weak and ineffective.”

I have to admit I would never have seen things like this, so it helps to have it spelled out for me. Now I think I get your point, or at least I am beginning to see where you are coming from.

I too don’t think the president would be THAT foolish, so I can now wholeheartedly agree with you that Mrs. Obama most likely did what she did off her own back, then. Which, again I agree, is not nice, for his sake.

As to Nigerian women running naked through forests, it simply won’t happen. It was an empty threat, a foolish one at that. Nigeria is still a very conservative society. it might be ‘cool’ to talk the talk of European feminists, but no-one there is about to do anything resembling a slut walk anytime soon. It is too socially risky. So @ steve H, if this was a bluff, it won’t work if it is called.

As to ‘women getting men to do their bidding’, well, it happens all the time, no? *smile*
You know it does…

It is (supposed to be) a feature, not a bug of human interaction. Um, biology dictates this.

But I suppose the element of SHAME is what is irking. SHAMING men into chivalry, resource provision, protection, etc. or DEMANDING it is a modern trend, borne out of brash feminism.

And I think I agree it is not very feminine at all…and likely to have the opposite effect on men than what is desired…as indeed it has.

So I think I come full-circle and agree with you that Mrs. Obama could have got her husband involved in a much more private way, or if it had to be public, then perhaps a joint video with him (where he takes the role of the ‘big man’ as opposed to someone else being the implied ‘big man’ that Michelle is appealing to), or something, anything, that doesn’t weaken his position so much.

And so sez/has sed every other Amerikan tradcon jingoist unwilling to put his own body where his mouth is (“yes, you’re damned right I’d grab a rifle and go over to Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Haiti/some-other-far-flung-imperial-colony, ‘cept that I’m married/have kids/a mortgage/a job/flat feet/a bad back.” Since I can’t go, let the 82nd Airborne and the Marines go instead. It’s not like they have anything better to do, and they’re better at it than I am!”)

And so sez/has sed every other Amerikan tradcon jingoist unwilling to put his own body where his mouth is (“yes, you’re damned right I’d grab a rifle and go over to Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Haiti/some-other-far-flung-imperial-colony, ‘cept that I’m married/have kids/a mortgage/a job/flat feet/a bad back.” Since I can’t go, let the 82nd Airborne and the Marines go instead. It’s not like they have anything better to do, and they’re better at it than I am!”)

Okay yes, I understand your point. And no, this is not the responsibility of the US government. I concur. And no I do not want our President to send in the US Marines to do this.

If so, he has deliberately weakened his own position, as having his own wife publicly begging for some big strong man to take action can only make him look hopelessly weak and ineffective. I’m not a fan of the president, but I can’t imagine that he would be that foolish.

I’m not so sure. Whatever lessens the US’ standing in the world is what Obama seems to do. The Benghazi debacle made him look incredibly weak. He is fine with that as long as the diminishment of American influence is accomplished.

And, he’s a black guy from a single mother. That explains the First Lady, who is her posthumous surrogate.

As to ‘women getting men to do their bidding’, well, it happens all the time, no? *smile*
You know it does…

It is (supposed to be) a feature, not a bug of human interaction. Um, biology dictates this.

Agreed. I think part of the issue here is that what she did is so common as to not stand out. It is in a sense, natural. Yet at the same time we are generally in denial about these things. In our guts we all know what is going on here, but most men and women who saw the poutyfaced tweet would have struggled to identify what Mrs. Obama was actually doing. Once you point it out it is clear, but without calling it out the majority of people will buy the “awareness” lie. This brings up your next point:

But I suppose the element of SHAME is what is irking. SHAMING men into chivalry, resource provision, protection, etc. or DEMANDING it is a modern trend, borne out of brash feminism.

I don’t think it is the shame per se, but it is the craven hopping back and forth from strong independent woman to manipulative girl-game with shame being part of the manipulation.

I think part of the issue here is that what she did is so common as to not stand out. It is in a sense, natural. Yet at the same time we are generally in denial about these things. In our guts we all know what is going on here, but most men and women who saw the poutyfaced tweet would have struggled to identify what Mrs. Obama was actually doing. Once you point it out it is clear, but without calling it out the majority of people will buy the “awareness” lie.

Problem is, if you point it out (independent feminist woman attempting to shame someone with a penis into “acting”) a virtuous feminist immersed in the imperative will just stipulate that you have not identified her target audience. She’ll just say “…that tweet is intended for the kidnappers only, not for men to act…” and she’ll stick to her guns on that because… what choice does she have?

Of course, you are right Dalrock, but you are not going to get feminists to admit that. The better tactic would be to confront the feminist with the tweet and ask the feminist (BEFORE you make YOUR point) who she thinks the intended target audience is of that tweet?

Of course, you are right Dalrock, but you are not going to get feminists to admit that. The better tactic would be to confront the feminist with the tweet and ask the feminist (BEFORE you make YOUR point) who she thinks the intended target audience is of that tweet?

This is a tougher sell for feminists than you are acknowledging. Their best bet is for it not to be noticed or brought up. Otherwise they end up having to argue that Mrs. Obama and a whole slew of other feminist women weren’t making the pouty face to good men, they were making the pouty face to the bad men. Either way, the pouty face is a source of deep feminist embarrassment.

“Given that no good deed, especially one done by men, EVER goes unpunished…”

Sadly, your assessment is probably correct.

By the way, what is your definition of a “tradcon”? I assume by that you mean “traditional conservative”, which I’d consider myself. I’ve put myself in harms way three times now (my time in the service is almost over, by the way), and I know a large percentage of my fellow combat vets (officers and NCOs alike) would also consider themselves traditional conservatives. Maybe my definition of that term is different than yours.

Spacetraveller – “So @ steve H, if this was a bluff, it won’t work if it is called.”

You may be right about Nigerian women doing this without the international Sisterhood actually joining them on the ground.

But let’s look at just that strategy from a wider scope. Hillary Clinton won’t be feminist *enough* to provide for that strategy’s opportunity. Angela Merkel certainly isn’t. But there may come a time when a woman of Michelle Obama’s far-leftist sort is granted the opportunity to provide her ‘solution’, buttressed by the hard-left feminist sisterhood’s full co-signage of said ‘solution’.

Maybe that is what it’s going to take to sufficiently crack that foundation. Because until and unless they’ve been ‘empowered’ to ‘try it their way’, they can keep whining that they are better equipped than ‘the patriarchy’ at addressing these complex, nuanced geopolitical conflicts. And the general public, lacking the willingness to consider insights posited here, will defer to their Cathedral nonsense with rote head nods of moronic stupor.

This *could* end when the catastrophic consequences of state-promoted feminist geopolitical solutions become so undeniable that even MSM will be forced to call a spade a spade.

This is a tougher sell for feminists than you are acknowledging. Their best bet is for it not to be noticed or brought up. Otherwise they end up having to argue that Mrs. Obama and a whole slew of other feminist women weren’t making the pouty face to good men, they were making the pouty face to the bad men. Either way, the pouty face is a source of deep feminist embarrassment.

And of course, all of that is true.

When you get right down to it, feminism is what feminists want only when it is truly convenient. Fortunately for feminists, the 1st world is rich enough, stable enough, and civilized enough to accommodate all the inherent contradictions of feminism such that feminists aren’t put into situations where their imperative isn’t convenient. So for the majority of their lives, they can (and do) have their cake and eat it too…

What I learned from another blog I used to blog on (the majority of whose posters where radical feminists) is that deep down, feminists really see feminism empowering them in both ways: give them equal pay, equal rights, and equal choices but do NOT insist that they share in equal responsibility. They don’t want that, they want to be treated like ladies. And if you ask them that, provided they are not speaking out disingenuously, they will admit they want it all. To them, that is feminism. Its kind of like a woman dramatically out-earning her date and still insisting that he pay all the time when they go out. Both sides, both ways. This #poutyface is really no different. It is just saying “…okay world, we are women and we can do anything but remember we are still the physically weaker sex and we can’t go to war and we can’t rescue ourselves, so although we are never going to give up the feminism we still insist that men step in and make us whole and don’t you DARE make us feel bad about insisting that you do so.”

Fact is, that women are not going to be able to help these kidnapped girls. Laws in Nigeria will get them nowhere. The courts will get them nowhere. Law enforcement will get them nowhere. Feminism will get them nowhere. Only the chivalry of courageous men (who are willing to risk their lives) will make the villains accountable. All those girls can do (at this point) is pray to God and ask Him to inspire men to step up and save them.

Yeah, I don’t think they know who the target of their campaign is, or have even thought about it. As you say, they want “someone” to do something about it, but if you were to start listing the kind of someones who might have the ability and the desire to get the job done, they’d make a different sort of face at that.

I guess that’s what happens when you’ve spent your entire life having things done for you by “someone”; you don’t really have to think about whom you’re asking to service your desires. Mrs. Obama skated into Princeton on affirmative action, got a patronage job at a hospital in Chicago because her husband was a politician — then a huge raise when he got into the Senate, for a job that was so critical that when she left it they didn’t bother to replace her — and now she lives in the White House and vacations around the world on the taxpayers’ dime. “Someone” has been making her life pleasant as long as she can remember, so I suppose it’s only natural that when this story comes along and gives her feelbad, she figures “someone” will fix this for her too.

Oscar, a “tradcon” around here is someone who claims to be conservative and have respect for tradition, but when you scratch the surface, you find that the only traditions he wants to conserve are those that have been established in modern times. His preferred “traditions” rarely go back more than 50 years or so, usually to his childhood, and are completely filtered through the lens of the female imperative.

The typical tradcon will be in favor of stay-at-home moms, large families, and the like in theory, but he will also want his perfect princess daughter to get a college degree and establish a career before marrying at about 28, just in case she picks a loser. And he will not see the contradiction there. He will think that being traditional and conservative means treating women with respect instead of like whores — which is true — but he goes to the other extreme by treating them as infallible angels or robots who can do no wrong unless tricked by bad men.

Whatever lessens the US’ standing in the world is what Obama seems to do. The Benghazi debacle made him look incredibly weak. He is fine with that as long as the diminishment of American influence is accomplished.

And, he’s a black guy from a single mother. That explains the First Lady, who is her posthumous surrogate.

Successfully and directly NAILED, Cane.

@Oscar:

An excellent question. While the definition is wide open to interpretation, the definition of tradcon (you’re correct in your assumption of the meaning of the acronym/abbreviation) that I use is one that others here and elsewhere across the androsphere have come to use recently with increasing frequency. Essentially, it is someone who holds as “traditional” and “conservative” beliefs that are in reality nothing but yesteryear’s progressive liberalism (“yesteryear” as in forty to fifty years or two or three generations ago), a belief mistakenly held to be “traditional”, “conservative,” “limited-government,” “family-oriented,” “Christian-based,” ‘Constitutional'” (as if that’s a GOOD thing), or other such PC buzzwordy adjectives, when in fact, when acted upon to its inevitable ends, is anything but any of the above.

As others here and elsewhere in the androsphere have pointed out (and here’s a very good article that serves to illustrate the point: http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/breaking-the-pendulum-tradcons-vs-feminists/)), this serves as an excellent explanation as to why the tradcon and the feminist viewpoints so often converge and why both philosophies are ultimately identical in their misandric underpinnings and why they lead, when acted upon, to inevitably and systemically misandric ends.

I too, BTW, put myself in harm’s way (for 17 years) as a member of Uncle’s Sam’s Imperial Legions, before waking up and realizing that “national defense” or “defending freedom” had NADA to do with the job (indeed, where the latter is concerned, I was serving exactly the opposite ends). You wouldn’t believe the absolute fury I suffered by deciding to leave the service three years short of the careerist’s 20 mark rather then re-up just one more time (I simply decided that enough was enough and couldn’t stand the thought of even three more years of hypocritical indentured servitude). One would’ve thought that I was a second Benedict Arnold or Jane Fonda from the reaction my decision drew.

The thing is, I can’t tell from that picture if our First Lady is genuinely concerned about what has happened (and continues to happen) in Nigeria OR if she was asked to make that #poutyface and start this conversation by a 3rd party who insists that someone with a penis “acts” but only a pouty faced First Lady would have enough clout to make that happen. I’m not convinced that Mrs Obama is acting on her own personal concerns here OR if she is following a script put forth by someone else and she is just going along with it because she figures it can’t do anyone any harm.

By the way, what is your definition of a “tradcon”? I assume by that you mean “traditional conservative”, which I’d consider myself.

Tradcon means traditional conservative. I too am a traditional conservative. And sometimes (not all the time and not from all the posters here) I get some grief for being a traditional conservative.

I’d say feeriker did a pretty good job describing it. I guess from the manosphere’s perspective I should get some grief for giving some women a “pass” (by that I mean getting their education first and marrying only when they are ready) but I think much of that stems from my firm belief in inheritance. I want my children to have a better lifestyle (a HIGHER lifestyle) than I had and my way to give them that is through inheritance. Part of that inheritance means a higher education that I shall provide for them. I make no apologies for that and some people here go a little nuts at TradCons. So be it.

“The typical tradcon will be in favor of stay-at-home moms, large families, and the like in theory”

Dodged THAT bullet! My wife is a stay-at-home mom, and I have eight kids.

“he will also want his perfect princess daughter to get a college degree and establish a career before marrying at about 28, just in case she picks a loser”

I have five daughters. I’d like them to marry young (my wife was 22 when we wed), but I do want them to earn an education (not necessarily college) for the same reasons I married an educated woman. A mother is her children’s primary educator (we also home school) and stuff happens in life. I returned from combat alive and well, but I know many who didn’t.

“He will think that being traditional and conservative means treating women with respect instead of like whores”

I think respect is earned whether one owns a Y chromosome or not, so if a woman wants to be treated with respect, she needs to behave respectfully.

So, apparently, I’m not a “tradcon”. How would one label the positions I listed above?

@feeriker

Same question for you, if you don’t mind.

@innocentbystanderboston

“I guess from the manosphere’s perspective I should get some grief for giving some women a “pass” (by that I mean getting their education first and marrying only when they are ready)”

What do you mean by “giving some women a ‘pass'”? After all, It’s not as though you can make them marry, and even if you could, I assume you wouldn’t want to (nor would I).

What do you mean by “giving some women a ‘pass’”? After all, It’s not as though you can make them marry, and even if you could, I assume you wouldn’t want to (nor would I).

Sometimes men in the manosphere want to give young women a hard time for not knowing what they want (at age 20 or 25 or whatever) and these women turn up their nose at ordinary beta males and prefer to go with the alphas. Only to then settle for the “beta-provider” at age 28 or 33 or whatever after the alphamcharleydavidsonrockbranddrummer has already “used up” her most fertile years. I tend to be a bit more forgiving of that hypergamous nature. That is “giving some women a pass.” It drives a lot of the guys in the manosphere crazy because the really young ones feel their are entitled to a virginal wife at age 21, but they aren’t getting that….

…and I guess they blame feminism but since I (the tradcon) am here, they wind up blaming me for their misery. Whatever.

Provide a pic, so we may judge. I saw their wedding pictures from 1992. Michelle was NOT attractive in those…

I already pointed you to her prom photo. I’ll spoonfeed it to you again.

Her hair is on the short side and she has sorta funny facial features, but otherwise she was smokin’ even at 18.

Someone else sez:

Re whether or not Mrs. Obongo is an attractive woman or not, I give you this photo:

Admittedly, she doesn’t dress as well or have as nice a figure as the other two chicks. Compared to the average 55-year old Americano chick, though, I’d put her way ahead (she is about 55, you realize that, right?) How old are those other two women?

That’s one of the few things I do admire about her. She at least doesn’t smoke cigarettes or chow down fast food every night. For an old lady, she looks pretty good.

If you guys want to argue that she’s a bitch who is disrespectful of her husband, I’ll join you (you’re sort of preaching to the choir, there) but we shouldn’t need to make up faults she doesn’t have. She’s never been a great beauty or a perfect ten, but she had a great figure when she was young, and has taken care of herself far better than most women (men too) I see waddling around. I’d have hit it, if we had met when we were both 22, and I doubt I’m in the minority there.

Shaming men for wanting a virgin wife and calling them “entitled?” What a mangina!

Wanting a wife with a low notch count is merely wanting a functional marriage (yes, I know exceptions exist, but they prove the rule).

You generally can’t turn a ho’ into a housewife. It’s the male equivalent of a woman marrying a skid-row bum with the idea that she can nag him into a white-collar job. It may happen once in a while, but it’s a horrible thing to bet your future on.

Oscar, I just call myself a traditionalist, or a traditional Catholic if religion is part of the discussion. “Conservative” doesn’t really mean anything anymore, since it doesn’t state what you want to conserve. Republicans use it to mean someone who supports the military and would like to roll back social liberalism a decade or two, and the media uses it as a catchall epithet to mean “not liberal enough.”

Oscar to IBB: What do you mean by “giving some women a ‘pass’”?

He’s euphemistically referring to his position that men should turn a blind eye to girls riding the cock carousel until about age 25, or as long as it takes them to get it out of their system. He’s a great example of how the tradcon’s dedication to tradition comes second to his desire to never ever hold women responsible for anything.

Well, I think that would be better than having that same Christian militia fly to Nevada to point their sniper rifles at Federal agents of the Bureau of Land Management.

Some things are worth taking a stand on, worth risking your life.

*SIGH*

I know better than to bite at this sort of nonsense, but since it’s Monday afternoon and the rest of the workday is already shot, here goes:

What on earth does a domestic struggle against constitutional usurpation have to do with a “humanitarian” rescuing of ferners who are none of Amerika’s collective concern? Why would you even compare the two? (Note to self: OK, cut the current face of IBB a little bit of slack here, since he’s being gracious enough to expose the inconsistencies of his so-called “beliefs” [i.e., that we have no business resisting the Big Government he and his tradcon brethren allegedly despise, even if that government is trampling the rights he supposedly holds so dear and would have proxies defend to the last drop of their, though not HIS blood]).

Rescuing foreign blacks = worth Western blood, so long as they’re Christians.

Taking on an out-of-control federal government so that your kids might have some semblance of liberty = totally not worth it, bro.

BTW, I joined the Army a few months after 9/11, and there were many cowards like yourself insisting that you would “sign up” if it weren’t for wife/family/job. I remember thinking that the Continental Army must have only accepted bachelors, leaving the family men to tend hearth and home. Because if the CA had enlisted family men, that would make the tradcon excuse-makers a bunch of half-American geldings, and that can’t possibly be the case.

feeriker – “What on earth does a domestic struggle against constitutional usurpation have to do with a ‘humanitarian’ rescuing of ferners who are none of Amerika’s collective concern?”

Nothing, except to show that we could use a million man militia here to defend against the tyranny of the state.

I wonder why IBB hasn’t to call out this million man crusade to protect Christians in Mexico from the drug cartels, or the people of Venazuela against a Marxist dictatorship. Perhaps they can journey to Ukraine to save the locals from the Russians. In each of those cases tens of thousands of lives are at stake. Why are these 300 Nigerian girls worth the potential sacrifice?

“Only to then settle for the “beta-provider” at age 28 or 33 or whatever after the alphamcharleydavidsonrockbranddrummer has already “used up” her most fertile years. I tend to be a bit more forgiving of that hypergamous nature.”

What do you mean when you say you are “more forgiving of that hypergamous nature”? Do you agree or disagree that such behavior is destructive to the person who engages in it and to society at large?

I certainly don’t want my daughters to behave thusly. And I’ll certainly advise my sons (in the strongest terms possible) to avoid sluts. Isn’t that what the church in general, and fathers in particular, should do? After all, the Book of Proverbs spends one chapter describing the ideal wife/mother, but three chapters warning young men to avoid sluts.

Rescuing foreign blacks = worth Western blood, so long as they’re Christians.

If we were a Christian nation defending fellow Christians abroad, that might make a lick of sense. But most of the time, for at least the last two decades, we’ve taken the side of Muslims in every such conflict. We already know that if a militant Muslim group murders a bunch of Christian boys, men, or whole families somewhere, our elites don’t bat an eye. The only reason this story is even a small exception is that the victims here are girls who were being educated (everyone assumes) in modern feminist cant.

Lion says:
May 12, 2014 at 8:06 am
Some of the absolute worst horrors imaginable take place on the continent of Africa every single day. Why all of a sudden are people paying attention? Is it because they are women?

In a word, yes. I’m on the road with my job again and caught the CNN discussion on this situation this morning while I was eating my complimentary breakfast. One “expert” noted that showing pictures of the girls demonstrates the brutality of the kidnappers. I thought that was an odd choice of words, as they also noted that the girls seem to be in good health. Not to downplay the kidnapping, but I would think the fact that those same people routinely massacre the male classmates of those same girls might be a better example of their brutality. But no such conclusion was forthcoming. Nobody even bothered to mention their dead brothers at all. Boys with their throats slit, boys being shot, boys burned alive? Not worth a mention. Not even worth a single f-ing word! Kidnapping girls and showing pictures of them alive and in apparently good health, though? Now THAT’S brutality for you.

Shortly after that, as I was driving to the job site, I passed a billboard highlighting the plight of homeless vets. That hits close to home as I am a retired officer, and there but for the grace of God… But the picture on the billboard was the face of a woman. In case it’s not obvious, over 90% of homeless vets are men. But who gives a crap, right? They’re just men, after all. If you want people to notice, women must be shown to suffer. A tiny bit of suffering by a woman outweighs a mountain of suffering by a legion of men.

Spacetraveller says:
May 12, 2014 at 11:51 am
She necessarily has to react in the way she can. And she has. A woman cannot fight these islamic militants head-on. In fact, that would add flames to the fire, as unlike in the West, women are considered ‘not a match’ for the men. (A good thing, in my humble opinion). So why is Mrs. Obama wrong in leaving the ‘brute force’ method to her husband and the other men, while she helps publicise this matter in a more feminine way? [Emphasis added.]

Why not? We are constantly told that women can do anything men can do, including being soldiers. Some even say that women make better soldiers than men. It’s nonsense of course – women can’t fight. But if she and her husband are going to bang the feminist drum, I see no reason why she can’t pick up an M-4 and fly her butt to Nigeria to take care of business her own bad self.

And I see no reason to attribute anything feminine to her – she’s not in the least bit feminine, and it appears to me that she never was. I disagree with Boxer on this one – she was a five at best in her younger years, and only made it to that mediocre rating when she was dolled up for her prom picture. Of course a woman doesn’t have to be pretty to be feminine, but listening to her for 15 seconds reveals that she’s not feminine in any other sense either.

What on earth does a domestic struggle against constitutional usurpation have to do with a “humanitarian” rescuing of ferners who are none of Amerika’s collective concern? Why would you even compare the two?

Well, those 300 girls are not America’s collective concern. It is not our government’s concern. Its my concern. I would think it would be your concern.

Cliven Bundy, well, I think what the BLM is/was doing was a bit over the top, but Bundy is still stealing from you and I. For whatever reason, that Federal land that he grazed his cattle on, it is protected by our government. And for whatever reason, if Bundy wants to use the land to feed his cattle (as has always been done in his family) he needs to pay a fee. If everyone else is doing it (but not Bundy) it gives him an unfair business advantage and he defrauding the government which (in turn) costs you and I a little more in tax dollars. He is stealing from us.

I think it would be more honorable (certainly mush more Christian) if a militiaman went to Africa to find those girls and get them back alive than to point a gun at the BLM. But what do I know, I’m just a tradcon.

(Note to self: OK, cut the current face of IBB a little bit of slack here, since he’s being gracious enough to expose the inconsistencies of his so-called “beliefs” [i.e., that we have no business resisting the Big Government he and his tradcon brethren allegedly despise, even if that government is trampling the rights he supposedly holds so dear and would have proxies defend to the last drop of their, though not HIS blood]).

Thanks for cutting me some slack.

No I do not want our President to send in troops for this. Its not a concern for our government. I do not want to risk the lives of our troops. It IS (or at least it should be) a concern for the Nigerian government. We could advise them (if they asked for it.)

The Christian in me says that it IS a concern for Christians. I believe in mission work. I have done it. I have served two missions at abortion clinics and I have saved at least two lives by talking two young girls (one of them crying the whole time I was talking to her) out of doing what they were about to do. I don’t know if I only delayed the inevitable (that the girls went back another day to murder what I talked them out of murdering the day I was there) but I like to think I made a difference. A Christian man with an expert set of skills (skills that I do not have) might be able to add some value here, make a difference, a true Christian mission….

….I don’t know I just…. it just pains me to see this because I still see 300 fathers crying every night for their baby girls who were taken from them. I want to help but I’m not much help here.

What do you mean when you say you are “more forgiving of that hypergamous nature”? Do you agree or disagree that such behavior is destructive to the person who engages in it and to society at large?

I agree with her riding the cock carrousel is destructive to her and society at large. I am just not into shaming her for it.

I don’t like it when a-holes like Pastor Driscoll try to shame men with his “man up” crap. By the same token, it does very little good to shame a slut. What’s done is done. I would never encourage a young man to marry a slut, but I am not going to shame him or her or discourage him either.

By the same token, it does very little good to shame a slut. What’s done is done. I would never encourage a young man to marry a slut, but I am not going to shame him or her or discourage him either.

Of course, you can’t have it both ways. The boy wants to have sex with the sexy, available girl. If you don’t shame her, you’re encouraging him by default. But you knew that.

Also, for those who are new and might think IBB is just trying to be fair and non-judgmental, you should know that he/she considers a 40-year-old man who pursues 25-year-old women to be a “pervert” with “sexual deviancy.” Judging and shaming are only bad when the target is a slutty girl.

Here’s an excellent comment from a few months back by Anonymous Reader that (along with other comments in the thread) explains how the tradcon man ends up giving the feminist a run for her money in whitewashing any bad behavior by women, even to the point of convincing himself that a prospective wife’s sexual history is irrelevant.

Cliven Bundy, well, I think what the BLM is/was doing was a bit over the top, but Bundy is still stealing from you and I

Cliven Bundy isn’t stealing ANYTHING from you or from me. That land doesn’t belong to “us” any more than it belongs to Howard Hughes, the Man in the Moon, or Harry Reid. I’ll just leave this here: let the feds show where the Nevada state legislature, at any time in that state’s 150-year history, ever formally sold or ceded that land to Washington under the terms of the Nevada State Constitution (to say nothing of he U.S. one). Once they do that, I’ll publicly advocate that Mr, Bundy take his cattle sommers else to graze. Until then, he’s completely within his rights to keep them there and let them graze (as would be anyone else who is a Nevada resident, until someone LEGALLY PURCHASES the land in question, at which point it becomes private property).

Boxer, she’s got that Grace Jones kind of look about her in that picture. Good figure but honestly wouldn’t wish someone that frightening on my worst enemy.

Seriously? I think she looks sorta young Nina Simone-ish as a kid. Cute with a touch of goofy awkwardness. I also note that she’s got a modest pose going on that I find outdatedly feminine and awesome.

Anyway, it’s a shame how she turned out. Just goes to show how feminism ruins everything.

IBB is two personalities, like Smeagol and Gollum, or like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

IBB1 (the good one) : Makes proper red-pill statements without hesitation. He even says female suffrage causes society to implode over time.

IBB2 (the ‘woe is my prospects of being a grandfather’ one) : His biggest worry is that a suitable man will not marry his daughter, and not provide him with a grandchild. What he fails to see is that the best way to guarantee a minimum number of grandchildren is to have more kids yourself. The number of grandkids a person has will usually be a square of the number of kids they have.

Two men of the same age :

Bill Clinton : One Grandchild on the way, that too when he is 68 so he won’t know him to well.
Mitt Romney : 22 Grandchildren

Why such a gap? Well, how many kids did each man have?

So IBB has some cognitive dissonance there. Want grandkids Have more kids yourself.

“I agree with her riding the cock carrousel is destructive to her and society at large. I am just not into shaming her for it.”

What constitutes “shaming”? When one states that sexual promiscuity is sinful and destructive to all involved (and even those not involved), is that “shaming”?

“I would never encourage a young man to marry a slut, but I am not going to shame him or her or discourage him either.”

Why not? Is the Book of Proverbs wrong for warning young men to avoid sluts? Proverbs 5 says of slutty women:

3 For the lips of an immoral woman are as sweet as honey,
and her mouth is smoother than oil.
4 But in the end she is as bitter as poison,
as dangerous as a double-edged sword.
5 Her feet go down to death;
her steps lead straight to the grave.

The Bible tells us that sluts are death traps. Is that shaming? If so, is the Bible wrong?

Of men who fall for sluts, Proverbs 7 says:

7 I saw some naive young men,
and one in particular who lacked common sense.
8 He was crossing the street near the house of an immoral woman

The Bible tells us that men who fall for sluts are naive and senseless. Some translations are much harsher. Is that shaming? If so, is the Bible wrong?

One thing IBB isn’t letting on here is that he isn’t just against shaming sluts. He has explained previously that he worries that women will marry without having several years of sampling men of different sizes, otherwise they might accidentally marry a man with insufficient penis size. Like a very large number of modern men and women the idea that a woman would marry the first man she has sex with disturbs him, although his preoccupation with penis size is an unusual twist on this common concern.

And I stand by my own hashtag waaaaay upthread as the one-size-fits-all replacement for many, perhaps most, hashtag campaigns.

Actually, red-pill men should use that all the time (pretending to be ‘feminists’). That way, more fence-sitters reach their breaking point and become red pill.

For MRAs, pretending to be am extreme caricature of a ‘feminist’ in other parts of the Internet, is a good way to turn more men red pill (although, there is no parody possible of ‘feminists’ beyond what they have said in all seriousness. Still, most men still don’t realize what little rights or freedoms ‘feminists’ think men should be allowed to have).

I had drinks last night with a woman I know. Let’s call her Claire. Claire just turned 42. She’s cute, smart, and successful. She’s frustrated though, because she can’t find a man. I listened all evening about how difficult her search has been. About how all the “good ones” were taken. About how her other friends had found their soul-mates, and how it wasn’t fair that she had not.
“Look at me,” she said. “I take care of myself. I’ve put myself out there. Why is this so hard?”
“How about that guy at the end of the bar,” I said. “He keeps looking at you.”
“Not my type.”
“Really? How do you know?”
“I just know.”
“Have you tried a dating site?” I asked.”
“Are you kidding? I would never date someone I met online!”
“Alright. How about a change of scene? Your company has offices all over – maybe try living in another city?”
“What? Leave San Francisco? Never!”
“How about the other side of town? You know, mix it up a little. Visit different places. New museums, new bars, new theaters…?”
She looked at me like I had two heads. “Why the hell would I do that?”
Here’s the thing, Parker. Claire doesn’t really want a man. She wants the “right” man. She wants a soul-mate. Specifically, a soul-mate from her zip code. She assembled this guy in her mind years ago, and now, dammit, she’s tired of waiting!!
I didn’t tell her this, because Claire has the capacity for sudden violence. But it’s true. She complains about being alone, even though her rules have more or less guaranteed she’ll stay that way. She has built a wall between herself and her goal. A wall made of conditions and expectations. Is it possible that you’ve built a similar wall?

Great. A week later, and GCM is still here poisoning the well. When will her appetite for attention be satiated?
Now back onto the topic. The “bring back out girls” is just another Kony 2012. A passing mass propaganda scheme/hashtagactivism that will distract the masses. There is no better activism for the narcissist than that which takes almost zero effort. How many calories does typing a tweet burn?.Such is the way of our culture now: The more you go through the motions, the less insignificant you feel. The dull reality as a cog in the machine is much less inspiring than changing the world through ones and zeroes. Alas, all that glitters is not gold. It is only though the example of the Lord that I avoid nihilism.
There are principalities at play here, so instead of asking why the media is showing us and highlighting this, we should ask what they want us to think by showing it to us. You are being manipulated, but to what end?
Of course the feminist angle is one you will see increasingly. No way to galvanize women to the booth to vote for another democrat unless it has a vagina attached and it’s getting attacked. Do they still count votes? Does it matter? Is it all just theater? The figurehead changes but the actions and overreaching progresses to new excess. Perhaps, I am just as guilty. Posting long diatribes that only dozens will read to the end. Is my concern for the trajectory of our culture my own narcissism or a true bellwether of the degradation of civilization?.Is civilization degrading or is the thin veneer of righteousness and pride what is eroding, and our true nature is once again exposed?
The indulgences cannot continue forever, only patched over and the costs socialized until it collapses under it’s own weight. Render unto Caesar.

I am surprised that no one (myself included) has yet mentioned the O word. I propose that the real reason behind western interest (the kidnapped girls being the excuse) is that there are some 37 Billion barrels of Oil untapped in Nigeria and the actions of the terrorists are making life difficult for Oil Companies. It’s a hopeless task however, as the western government’s like that of Great Britain can not and will not even control Muslim’s at home and constantly appease their behaviour, so it seems highly unlikely that they will achieve anything in Nigeria. Naturally we are offering specialist help (liaising with our American allies – even holding up the same ridiculous hash-tag) but the problem is Nigeria’s – and Cameroon’s and Niger’s, because the group – a group that has murdered some 10,000 people in ten years including Muslim clerics who are less than supportive – does not recognise western imposed boundaries and nation states.

IBB reminds me a little of Ethan Edwards in that rather wonderful movie The Searchers; will he rescue the girl when he finds her or kill her as she has now gone native? Are we any time soon likely to see leading Christian’s opposing western-liberalism? I have more than a sneaking regard for Islamists whose beliefs do match their actions, even as I deplore their behaviour or presence east of Vienna’s gates.

Actually the whole mess in northern Nigeria has been on going for near 50 years. Look at the causes of the 1967 Nigeria/Biafra civil war. All starts with the religion of peace trying the rid northern Nigeria of Christians.

“I am surprised that no one (myself included) has yet mentioned the O word. I propose that the real reason behind western interest (the kidnapped girls being the excuse) is that there are some 37 Billion barrels of Oil untapped in Nigeria and the actions of the terrorists are making life difficult for Oil Companies.”

That untapped oil is under the Niger delta. Boko Haram is operating in the Northeastern area of Nigeria, which is hundreds of miles afar.

Why are replying to IBB? It has always been clear that men with daughters are pretty much a pestilence for the ‘sphere.

Mostly because every word he posts proves that very point, or the more general point about tradcons basically being anti-abortion feminists. Those of us who have been studying this stuff for a while may think that’s obvious, but it’s still a difficult thing for most people to grasp, and new people arrive at sites like this every day. As long as he doesn’t hijack threads and prevent useful discussion (as TGC tries to do), he’s instructive.

Like a very large number of modern men and women the idea that a woman would marry the first man she has sex with disturbs him, although his preoccupation with penis size is an unusual twist on this common concern.

The bolded statement above would appear to support the contention by some here that the IBB handle is used by both a man and a woman at various times.

And with that revelation, guys, we have irrefutable confirmation that this broad is irreparably damaged goods (that and the fact that Mike Rowe, of all people, made explicit reference to the fact that she’s prone to explosive violence).

Mostly because every word he posts proves that very point, or the more general point about tradcons basically being anti-abortion feminists. Those of us who have been studying this stuff for a while may think that’s obvious, but it’s still a difficult thing for most people to grasp, and new people arrive at sites like this every day. As long as he doesn’t hijack threads and prevent useful discussion (as TGC tries to do), he’s instructive.

It’s an incorrect assertion. Most have fallen for the liberal frame on how abortion is all about being either “pro-woman” or “anti-woman”. Newsflash: abortion ISN’T about women. It’s about babies, more specifically what’s in the womb. Most anti-abortionists I’ve seen care more about science and how it intertwines with morality/ethics than “anti-feminism/feminism” either way.

The liberal media just framed it as “WOMEN” because well, women are solipsistic, and tend to think that it’s call about them. Somehow an unborn child isn’t more important than them.

I’m fairly new to this corner of the ‘net (Thanks again, Cane, for the insight from our conversation on your site), so I don’t know IBB. My questions to IBB were sincere. I was honestly trying to understand his thought process. If what you wrote is accurate, it’s – frankly – disturbing.

White knights, and chivalrous fathers, the ones who are afraid of slut-shaming their own precious daughters and support Christo-feminism, are not the anti-abortion types. They send their daughters to college and give them contraception. They don’t go around abortion clinics handing out fliers, or spread the message of how the false god of Moloch exists.

The anti-abortion types seem more concerned with history, science and morality/ethics. In a weird way, they tend to put the concerns of unborn children over what women in general say, and they don’t put women on a pedestal since the whole image of a woman killing her own baby is a pretty ugly and horrifying one.

“It has always been clear that men with daughters are pretty much a pestilence for the ‘sphere. They can’t let go of their delusions, and they are completely useless:”

I’m a man with daughters. Five of them. Along with three sons. Can you provide some evidence of what delusions I hold?

By the way, Dalrock has at least one daughter of which I’ve read. You’re using his blog, yet you accuse him of being “completely useless” and “pretty much a pestilence for the ‘sphere”. Can you explain that contradiction?

Anti-abortion types seem to tolerate illegitimacy on some level though, so that’s another issue.

They’re choosing the lesser of two evils. You’re right that many tradcons aren’t as anti-abortion (and anti-contraception) as they should be; I was just saying that’s the biggest distinction between them and the feminists, who are rabidly pro-abortion.

Oscar, understand that when we talk about groups of people having certain traits, we don’t mean every person in that group always and everywhere. We’re talking about tendencies, and men with daughters tend to white-knight for them and want to provide them with loopholes in case they run into difficulties in life, which is how we got no-fault divorce and presumptive maternal custody of children. Feminist women couldn’t have enacted those things on their own; they needed the help of daughter-pedestalizing men to do it.

However, we’re talking about the typical modern man with two daughters and no sons, not the man with five daughters and three sons. With that many kids, whatever the mix of boys and girls, you can’t have too many illusions about girls being made of sugar and spice and everything nice. Parents I know with big families are more likely to see their daughters — no matter how much they love them and dote on them — as trouble waiting to happen. The idea of supporting each daughter until the age of 28 or so and taking on a bunch of debt so she can dabble in college and find herself before marriage is a lot more appealing to the father of one than the father of five. It may be impossible for the father of five; he’s more likely to want to get them safely married and made some other man’s responsibility as soon as possible.

“understand that when we talk about groups of people having certain traits, we don’t mean every person in that group always and everywhere.”

Thanks for the clarification, however…

“We’re talking about tendencies, and men with daughters tend to white-knight for them and want to provide them with loopholes in case they run into difficulties in life”

If that is what one means, that is what one should write. It’s far less confusing that way, especially for newbies like me. I can only read words, not minds.

“It may be impossible for the father of five”

That’s a fact!

“he’s more likely to want to get them safely married and made some other man’s responsibility as soon as possible.”

“Safely” being the key word there. That’s one of the reasons I stumbled onto the manosphere. There’s very little help in the church (and this is an embarrassment) for fathers who want to help their daughters choose a husband wisely. My oldest are 14, so the time approaches quickly. Unfortunately, I haven’t read much in the ‘sphere on the subject either. Maybe there aren’t enough fathers old enough to have undergone the process writing in the ‘sphere.

Maybe someone here can point me toward some articles from trusted sources.

The problem with leftists is not that they engage in consciousness raising, which can often be an important first step. The problem is it is often all they do, they beleive talk is enough, absent actual action and measurable results. Consciousness raising that is not followed up by effective tangible action, and action that actually solves the problem, is worse than useless, it is counterproductive. Yes MLK raised everyones consciousness on segregation, but what broke it was the civil rights bill enforced by fed marshals. Consciusness raising will not stop boko haram, killing most of them will.

@Oscar re: helping her choose wisely. Unfortunately the best thing you can do is shelter her and keep her away from boys entirely, and only admit a select few that YOU select for her into her presence. Women’s pickers are broken, and if left free to choose then women will choose unwisely. You *can’t* help her choose wise, but you *can* prevent her from choosing unwisely.

There’s very little help in the church (and this is an embarrassment) for fathers who want to help their daughters choose a husband wisely.

Very true. This is one of the most tragic, destructive, and inexcusable failures of the contemporary church. It also serves to explain why the rate of divorce among churchians is nearly identical to that of the general population. I wish I could offer you some practical advice on alternative sources of faith-based support in this, but I’m honestly at a loss. Prayer and Scripture study are about the best that I can recommend.

The comments about penis size, if I am remembering them correctly, were based on IBB’s view that women often divorce their husbands due to them having penises which are too small – that is, they want a man with a bigger penis. And apparently they didn’t know any better because they hadn’t tried different sizes of penis before marrying, and thereby getting to know what kind of penis they prefer, and selecting a man with that kind of penis (presumably size and girth, to varying degrees depending on the woman). So the idea he has is that it is better for a woman to get to know what kind of penis she prefers, and select a man for marriage with that kind of penis, than to marry a man with a penis she doesn’t prefer (even if she doesn’t know she doesn’t prefer it at the time she gets married), because that will lead to divorce.

It’s a more specific (and bizarre) variant on the “it’s better to have a lot of sexual variety before marrying, so you learn what you want and need sexually, and can therefore select someone who is truly sexually compatible, rather than not knowing what you want/need, and marrying someone who is a bad match once you finally figure out what you prefer after you are already married”.

There’s very little help in the church (and this is an embarrassment) for fathers who want to help their daughters choose a husband wisely. My oldest are 14, so the time approaches quickly. Unfortunately, I haven’t read much in the ‘sphere on the subject either. Maybe there aren’t enough fathers old enough to have undergone the process writing in the ‘sphere.

Maybe someone here can point me toward some articles from trusted sources.

Try not to be disturbed. The comments Dalrock is making about what I said (regarding penis size) are taken completely out of context. And he knows it. Allow me to explain:

When I said that, it was with respect to women (irrationally) choosing to frivolously divorce their husbands (we in the manosphere call that “frivorce”), collect cash and prizes (from him), and move in the unemployedbutgreatlookingharleyridingrockbanddrummeralphamalelover with the big penis but never marry him because…. she would void some of her never ending cash and prizes from ex-husband. Dalrock seems to think this type of behavior (on the divorced mom’s part) is irrational because in doing so, she voids her “status” (status of married wife always trumping that of divorced mom with live-in boyfriend.) I say (for the sociopath feminist who is willing to unChristianly nuke her loving beta-ish husband in this way) that the above scenario makes perfect logical sense. She is already getting cash and prizes (cash and prizes = alimony, child support, and the house he must pay for) from #1 (provided she does not replace him with a legally married #2) so why should she care what Dalrock (or I or you or any of us) think of her “status?” The hell with “status.” The hell with what we think of her. The hell with her kids that have to see her lazy boyfriend in the house all the time. The hell with her friends who are married and judgmental of her behavior (after all, if they judge her, they are not good friends.) In her mind, she has it all (lifelong financial support, great orgasms, and she doesn’t have to work or sleep with the beta male that she married for financial support but never loved or even respected.)

Dalrock and I do not see eye to eye on that, and that’s okay. We don’t have to agree on that one. But Dalrock took my comment about penis size and keeps replaying it on his blog (over and over and over, obsessively really) and I really wish he would just let it go. Whatever.

Everyone else,

I tried to keep this thread on-topic by discussing only the viability of men volunteering to go over to Africa to help find those girls. That is on topic. I never said send in the US Marines. I never said we should force any man to go over there to find them. I never said we should shame anyone with a penis (the way our First Lady is doing) for not going over their on their own. I’m not going to do that.

If you guys disagree, that is okay. I’m not going fly off the handle and start typing some of the inane screed I read this morning. Chill out guys, I am not the enemy. You all know that.

I think the First Lady is wrong. I also think it is wrong what happened to these girls and if there was something that I could do about it, I would. But I can’t.

Dear Oscar, if you want me to explain my point of view, I’ll oblige. I’ll try to keep it short. The average married man, whether he’s religious or not, tends to have the following delusions about his daughters, if he has any:

– there are a huge number of slimy young bastards out there pretending to be nice but in reality preying on my innocent little princess in order to manipulate her into casual sex; in fact most young men fall into this category

(The reality is that 8 out of 10 potential suitors of hers are perfectly willing to kiss her ass, cherish her, treat her with respect and would never pump & dump her, but she’s bound to treat them like shit due to the hypergamy in her blood.)

– my daughter’s heart is at the right place, she just wants a nice, respectable man who treats her right, she’s never willingly engage in depraved sexual acts with nasty louts

(The reality is that she’s longing for hot casual sex with alpha thugs, and will find what she’s looking for if she has the opportunity. The likelihood is that she’ll engage in numerous sexual acts of the sort her daddy doesn’t even want to picture in his mind – cumshots in all orifices and all over her body, rimjobs, threesomes, anal etc. – with a string of alpha thugs, musicians, crooks, bikers and other badboys. This is the kind of life she’ll lead for at least more than a decade. This is the reality of the current SMP.)

– she’s a very smart, talented girl and she’ll do fantastic in college

(The reality is that she’s of mediocre intelligence and will likely end up with a pretty much worthless degree and a huge amount of student debt; she’ll end up doing some make-work gummint job that doesn’t add any value to society.)

– the reason we have to make sure she’s economically self-sufficient is because her future husband might as well turn out to be a mean bastard who divorces her ass in order to trade her in for a younger, hotter woman.

(The reality is that if she does end up divorced, it’ll most likely be her decision, and a frivolous one at that, not her husband’s.)

– my little princess is the best thing on the planet since sliced bread; she deserves the best type of man, she’ll practically be God’s gift to whichever man she gently allows to be her boyfriend. If she ends up single, it’s because all those dumbfuck guys fail to realize what a fantastic catch she is.

(The reality is that you’re probably largely overvaluing her looks, plus the type of female qualities in her that elicit commitment from a man)

I think this list pretty much covers it all. Due to these delusions, men with daughters are the most prominent perpetuators of social misandry. The support all anti-male laws and all forms of discrimination against men. For that reason, they are a pestilence for Red Pill men and contributors to the downfall of our civilization. Yeah, I imagine there are some exceptions. But generalizations exist for good reasons.

The comments about penis size, if I am remembering them correctly, were based on IBB’s view that women often divorce their husbands due to them having penises which are too small – that is, they want a man with a bigger penis. And apparently they didn’t know any better because they hadn’t tried different sizes of penis before marrying, and thereby getting to know what kind of penis they prefer, and selecting a man with that kind of penis (presumably size and girth, to varying degrees depending on the woman). So the idea he has is that it is better for a woman to get to know what kind of penis she prefers, and select a man for marriage with that kind of penis, than to marry a man with a penis she doesn’t prefer (even if she doesn’t know she doesn’t prefer it at the time she gets married), because that will lead to divorce.

All of this is a possible outcome/result of no-fault-divorce (one of the most sinister things we ever legalized.) Think about it, virginal wife marries a guy while she is young. She knows no other penis. She has pair bonded. Sex with him is the only sex she knows. She is happy. But she is a woman and she has a hamster wheel. And on that hamster wheel she can try to justify any behavior. And she has girl friends (some of them married, some of them not.) In one of her conversations with her girlfriends they start to talk about sex. And orgasms. And her girl friend who has had multiple lovers starts in about different shapes and sizes. And happily pair-bonded-wife starts to wonder if she ever actually HAD an orgasm? Then she starts to wonder what that would be like? Then she starts to wonder maybe what she has been missing? That pair-bond is starting to break down Nova.

Were it not for no-fault-divorce, she would have to wonder about that for the rest of her life. Unfortunately she has no-fault-divorce and with that option she can (in her hamster wheel mind) “trade up!” After all, why can’t she have more fun? Its not fair that she doesn’t get orgasms, those sound wonderful. She has now gone full hamster. It makes sense to start playing the field because she has no moral agency!

The longer I live Novaseeker, the more convinced I am that no-fault-divorce has been the greatest decay on Christianity and Western Civilization that there is. I genuinely believe that you can not have a functioning 1st world nation AND no-fault-divorce. They are completely at odds with one another because far too many human beings are immoral and sociopathic (and we don’t even know it.)

I have noticed (personally and from report) that women have a tendency to claim that their new lover has a large penis. Statistically that is improbable if not impossible, and thus although one basks in pride at being physically impressive (as if it were something one could take moral pride in) when has a man ever claimed how wonderful it is that his new woman’s vagina is smaller than the average – and if he does he will only assume virginity, which is a desirable for other reasons? As a friend of mine (who is far too blue-pill) observed to me: if two people are into each other the sex tends to be good. Tasting all flavours; as if a Penis is a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream is thus not only unnecessary, but, because familiarity breeds contempt, women with high partner counts tend to tire of novelty quickly, even as you fail to live up to some half-remembered long-past sexual experience she enjoyed.

IBB is in my view observant that women such as he describes are not interested in status, and are keen to imply that that is the case – they never wanted a husband, they are strong empowered and independent, and so on – yet I have also noticed that this bravado must hide a lurking regret that status is not theirs for the asking, so that they have no choice but to brag their independence – when did a man ever brag thus?; independence is the only thing they can hold up to the married-woman, who of course has forgone that for a bigger prize. Strong Independent women ™ are also very dependent on their married female friends for support – they have no man other than the loathed Beta Orbiter, the Alphas not being interested other than for pump and dump. Boasting of single-dom is a little like a losing candidate in an election bragging that he will now be able to spend more time with his family, or – a letter to my Father from a former colleague – regretting his having been passed over for promotion but consoling himself that he would not have wanted to move from his [modest] house as it was everything he desired in comfort – the regret was palpable; the reasoning, unconvincing.

The longer I live Novaseeker, the more convinced I am that no-fault-divorce has been the greatest decay on Christianity and Western Civilization that there is. I genuinely believe that you can not have a functioning 1st world nation AND no-fault-divorce. They are completely at odds with one another because far too many human beings are immoral and sociopathic (and we don’t even know it.)

It isn’t no fault divorce in isolation (although even in isolation it would be extremely problematic). In order to screw up marriage as badly as we have you need our current cocktail of no fault divorce combined with default mother custody and child support, and the moral cover the churches provide divorcing women (while pretending they do no such thing). If we had no fault divorce without any one of the other three, we would have much lower divorce rates. Likewise if we didn’t have child support and a “right” to welfare, we would have far lower rates of illegitimate births. Looking at the intersection of the two, child support is at the core of both if we are talking middle class and above.

Opus, that post was excellent. I agree with it (pretty much all of it.) But here is the point you are missing (the point you are all missing.)

You are all men. You are not women. You are trying to apply male logic and moral boundaries to illogical female behavior not bound by those same morals. Don’t do that. Women can and do get on that hamster wheel and run real fast and make the most illogical and immoral seem perfectly logical and moral (in their mind.) I’ve seen this. You all have too… Jenny Erikson.

Y’all are correct about not having a First World nation while dearies have total sexual liberty, which of course includes getting cash and prizes for breaking up marriage.

This was the basic thrust of the book SEX & CULTURE, by Unwin, 1934. You cannot only predict the productivity of the society by the sexual liberty women have. You can all predict the religious beliefs of that society by the sexual liberty women have. Churchianity, that is putting women over God, not after men, is a totally expected product of total female sexual liberty.

The first generation of women growing up with complete sexual liberty will ALWAYS see the end of their society. He went back thousands of years, and there were no exceptions.

So much so that matriarchy cannot actually exist in any detectible manner. Think East Saint Louis or sub-Saharan Africa.

###
One of unknown-sex posters here called me dearie after I used that term. I need to explain. For several decades, I have referred to American women as dearies.

Once in a while when I do a woman will get on her ear and say that seems to have a nasty and insulting tone to it. I thank them profusely and tell them I am glad to know I have not lost my communication skills. It is meant to be nasty and insulting. Since the 60’s, all we have heard is just how evil and vile all men are, and how perfect and sinless all women are. When the truth is, not only aren’t AM as bad as the women claim they are. But, collectively AW don’t even deserve AM.

Yes, dearie is meant to be very sarcastic and insulting. And, no red pill man has ever asked me to explain the term.

It isn’t no fault divorce in isolation (although even in isolation it would be extremely problematic). In order to screw up marriage as badly as we have you need our current cocktail of no fault divorce combined with default mother custody and child support, and the moral cover the churches provide divorcing women (while pretending they do no such thing). If we had no fault divorce without any one of the other three, we would have much lower divorce rates. Likewise if we didn’t have child support and a “right” to welfare, we would have far lower rates of illegitimate births. Looking at the intersection of the two, child support is at the core of both if we are talking middle class and above.

It is not in isolation (as you said) but it is the root of the problem. Just like Islam (in and of itself) is the root of the problem regarding terrorism from fundamentalists. Think about it Dalrock…

Without no-fault, it doesn’t matter if the mother gets default custody or not. She would need “fault” to get out of a marriage to get “custody.”

Even with child support, it doesn’t matter because she would need “fault” to get out of a marriage to get the child support from ex-husband.

Even with the cover of churches (taking her side in divorce), it doesn’t matter because she would need “fault” for there to even be a side to take.

You see that is the whole point. This dark ritual we call no-fault-divorce opened up a huge can of worms that you and I could only begin to speculate on the irreparable damage it has done (and will continue to do) to civilization. Everything stems from her needing be made happy at all times or else she might invoke her threatpoint.

I don’t want to make your head swell; but, you are quite correct: the female Hamster will fail to see that her position is worse than her married friends because ‘thinking makes it so'; she will believe her own publicity – women are never to be held accountable for anything – all bad-results are to be blamed to men – white-knights will confirm the excellence of her judgement.

Now about your solo mission to Africa: Do you speak African, Do you have a Map, Do you have a Passport, a Bruce Willis movie is not necessarily helpful as a user-guide. If you are intent on suicide, go to Boston Harbour, rent a ship; travel south east until you hit land. Should you meet a man called Kurtz you have taken a wrong turning.

Just watching ‘Oliver Twist’ on t’telly. Delivered a great lesson for white knights towards the end

“Nothing,” replied Mr. Brownlow, “except that it remains for us to take care that neither of you is employed in a situation of trust again. You may leave the room.”

“I hope,” said Mr. Bumble, looking about him with great ruefulness, as Mr. Grimwig disappeared with the two old women: I hope that this unfortunate little circumstance will not deprive me of my porochial office?”

“Indeed it will,” replied Mr. Brownlow. “You may make up your mind to that, and think yourself well off besides.”

“It was all Mrs. Bumble. She (r)would¯ do it,” urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round to ascertain that his partner had left the room.

“That is no excuse,” replied Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and indeed are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass- a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience- by experience.”

Laying great stress on the repetition of these two words, Mr. Bumble fixed his hat on very tight, and putting his hands in his pockets, followed his helpmate down stairs.

Hillary Clinton took to Twitter last week to excoriate Boko Haram’s kidnapping of 200 schoolgirls, using the now-ubiquitous hashtag #BringBackOurGirls. If there’s any natural enemy of the girl-hating, anti-education Nigerian terror group, it should be Clinton, who made promoting women’s rights around the globe her priority as secretary of state.

At a forum in New York a few days after her tweet, she said the kidnapping “is abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism, and it really merits the fullest response possible.”

Strong words. Stalwart sentiment. It sounded like the fierce denunciation of a woman who would have used every tool at her disposal to combat Boko Haram when she was in power. Except that when she had the chance, Clinton refused to designate the terror group as a terror group.

Josh Rogin of the Daily Beast reported that after Boko Haram car-bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja in 2011, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the CIA all wanted to so designate the group. Clinton didn’t take them up on it. Perhaps if the dozens of dead and wounded in that suicide attack had had a hashtag devoted to them, she would have thought differently.

Does this make Rich Lowry a white knight or mangina? Or is NRO finally entering the manosphere, bit by incremental bit? I know the ultimate goal here by Rich to do everything and anything he possibly can do to make sure Hillary does NOT win the Presidency, but it still nice to see some common sense.

This dark ritual we call no-fault-divorce opened up a huge can of worms that you and I could only begin to speculate on the irreparable damage it has done (and will continue to do) to civilization.

I often hear certain naive souls speak of this as “unintended consequences,” to which I reply “bovine excrement.” There is nothing “unintended” about them. Our evil overlords knew perfectly well what they were doing and these are exactly the results they intended.

“There is literally 1,000,000+ conservative American men who would (on their own dime I might add) fly to Africa with their own fire arms and would volunteer to case all of Africa until they found them and rescued them if (and only if) the President asked men to step up and volunteer.”

And do you actually think that any government would allow armed civilian foreign nationals to enter their country and kill their citizens? Most of the Americans can’t even find Nigeria on a map and yet you want to intervene in a conflict that you know nothing about (how many members are there in Boko Haram? Why did the US State Department for 2 years not place them on a their terrorist list? What does their insignia look like? What type of weapons do they have? ect ), on a continent and culture you know nothing about.

“I would be willing to do it were it not for my own family that needs me here working to put food on the table.”

Either put up or shut up.

“But were I not encumbered by a family, I would take time off from work and do this.”

How convenient for. I wonder what you will say to the parents of the single guy with nothing to lose who went on your moral crusade and was killed due to this ill planned and executed cowboy mission, disemboweled, his head cut of and placed on a stick while his naked and castrated body is placed in the middle of a village and his open corpse used as a shit pit? And the irony would be that they can’t even find the place on a map. I am sure they would be so grateful of your words of condolences.

“To me, that is the Christian thing to do. A true mission call if you will.”

The Christian thing for you to do [it not being your country] is to pray and keep your nose out of other peoples business.

I like to indulge in a bit of fantasizing from time to time.
A recurrent fantasy that I keep entertaining goes like this:
Michelle, Barky, and the two moochers-in-training are taken from their lofty perches and taxpayer-funded goodies, and placed in Anytown, USA. There, they have to make do for themselves on their own wits and hard work. They’d have to do stuff like, ya’ know, oh, eating on a budget. Getting their own groceries. COOKING, etc.
That’s a sit-com I’d pad a lot of cash to see.

I think these girls are screwed for a lot of reasons, not the least of which are the barriers various nation states will impose to prevent people who are capable of finding them from finding them. YMMV.

I’m not going to get into an argument with you about the semantics here. I don’t have to go to Nigeria or anywhere in the continent of Africa to know how badly things are f-cked up over there. I already know they are that way. And so do you.

Daughters are sluts in the making. The woman I was fingering in the cab of my truck behind the night club I met her in 2 hours earlier is a daughter. And so are those women we see on the college porn sites with the girls spraying beer enamas into the crowd. A father’s job is to speak the truth and take the fun out it. No body else is and the church damn sure isn’t. First lesson is that there is no such thing as cheating on a girl friend.
PS Luke how in the world did you find that song. You guys are weirdos, all of you. This one is for sons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs9-eOYH8mY

Rich Lowry is an admitted neocon, so the answer, by default, is yes, it does, unless he does something to prove himself otherwise. This is about as likely to happen as an alligator doing back flips, but stranger things have been known to occur.

“I’m not going to get into an argument with you about the semantics here.”

Semantics? You think going to another country and getting involved in something that would require the taking of lives and sacrificing lives and highlighting your ignorance on the matter as semantics?

“I don’t have to go to Nigeria or anywhere in the continent of Africa to know how badly things are f-cked up over there. “

Really? Then what happened to

“I would be willing to do it were it not for my own family that needs me here working to put food on the table. But were I not encumbered by a family, I would take time off from work and do this. To me, that is the Christian thing to do. *A true mission call if you will*.”

I thought that if you weren’t so busy as you currently are with a list of responsibilities that you would go over to Nigeria and fix a few things. You know … a true mission call and join a long list of people who tried to fix the bad and made it worse.

I am a TradCon. Pat Buchanan is a PaleoCon. I was always under the impression that a NeoCon is just a former liberal and now, NEW (neo=new) conservative because of something monumental that happened. In other words, 9-11 turned a lot of former liberals into NeoCons (with that reality slap across their face.) If I understand what you are saying, because NeoCons are former liberals who are now Conservative regarding foreign policy at least (usually anti-Islam), they are still liberal socially and pro-feminism?

Michelle, Barky, and the two moochers-in-training are taken from their lofty perches and taxpayer-funded goodies, and placed in Anytown, USA. There, they have to make do for themselves on their own wits and hard work.

It would be the shortest-run Reality TV show ever. With three days, if not less, they’d all have starved to death, homeless, or be locked up for some form of larceny. It would the human equivalent of letting an animal born and raised in captivity into the wild to fend for itself.

They are sluts that behave with chaste and are marriageable. I am a licensed hand gun carrier that is armed but have decided not to shoot some one. I’m a nice guy completely unmarriageable.
All are sluts if left feral that is the whole point of being civilized, for a father to think otherwise is being irresponsible with his stewardship of his daughter.

It is not in isolation (as you said) but it is the root of the problem. Just like Islam (in and of itself) is the root of the problem regarding terrorism from fundamentalists. Think about it Dalrock…

Without no-fault, it doesn’t matter if the mother gets default custody or not. She would need “fault” to get out of a marriage to get “custody.”

Even with child support, it doesn’t matter because she would need “fault” to get out of a marriage to get the child support from ex-husband.

But it works the other way as well. No fault divorce without cash and prizes wouldn’t be the same. Also, keep in mind that there are now two culturally and legally celebrated paths to baby-mama hood. There is baby-mama classic, where the woman makes a vow to remain married for life in front of her friends, family, and God, and then pulls the ripcord at her convenience. There is also new baby-mama, where she simply gets knocked up (as Lily did in the article I referenced in a recent post). Both of those paths rely on child support as the cash incentive (except for the very rich and the poor).

After giving it no small amount of thought, if you allowed me to change only one thing at the legal level it would be to abolish child support. Child support is plain and simple an alternative to marriage. At best it is a necessary evil, but we have removed the need to prove necessity, making it simply evil.

The church is the other strategic point which could bring us back to marriage as well. If unwed mothers (classic or new) were no longer called heroes by family values Christians, and instead were seen as failures and morally suspect, both paths to babymamahood would be severely constrained.

If I understand what you are saying, because NeoCons are former liberals who are now Conservative regarding foreign policy at least (usually anti-Islam), they are still liberal socially and pro-feminism?

The late Larry Auster used to say that a neocon is a liberal with a gun. He may have been quoting Steve Sailer, now that I think about it. But the quoted statement is a fair definition of a neocon.

That being said, neocons are far more insidious than you might think. Take your own statement: you think a hawkish, anti-Islam foreign policy is a conservative value. Is it? Does it sync with the vision of the Founders?

Personally, I don’t trust any flavor of conservative, because conservatism itself is philosophically incoherent. As Dalrock and others have said, conservatives pick a more or less arbitrary time (the neocons insist it’s 1776, but it’s really 1950), plant the flag, and insist that this is the best hill to die on. This is why cons see no contradiction in calling for small government, with the exception of endless military spending. They see no contradiction in calling for liberty, with the exception of an endless drug war. The Founders were not conservatives by this definition.

When everyone on the political stage is a statist, you get what we have now. The federal republic ended in 1865, and no American living has known a free country.

Thanks for the explanation. That particular topic really doesn’t pertain to my biggest concern. What you describe is heathens behaving like heathens (water being wet). What I’m concerned with is what I can do (other than studying the Scriptures and praying a whole lot) to prevent my children (male and female) from behaving like heathens.

If you don’t mind, please scroll back up a bit and address the questions I posed to you about the Book of Proverbs.

Dalrock said:
“The church is the other strategic point which could bring us back to marriage as well. If unwed mothers (classic or new) were no longer called heroes by family values Christians, and instead were seen as failures and morally suspect, both paths to babymamahood would be severely constrained.”

AMEN! Well said Dalrock!.
Not enough church members realise how important it is for the church to uphold what Jesus taught on the subject of marriage. If you’re interested please have a look at: Once Married Always Married.

That being said, neocons are far more insidious than you might think. Take your own statement: you think a hawkish, anti-Islam foreign policy is a conservative value. Is it? Does it sync with the vision of the Founders?

Actually, yes it does. It was our Founding Fathers that first had trouble with them. We wouldn’t have the US Marine Corp were it not for Islam.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.[21]

Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador’s comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson’s own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World.[22] The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages.[citation needed] A$1 million payment in ransom and tribute to the privateering states would have amounted to approximately 10% of the U.S. government’s annual revenues in 1800.[23]

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became increasingly possible for America to refuse paying tribute, although by now the long-standing habit was hard to overturn.

Right there, straight fundamental Islam. Make no mistake, it has been a problem for the United States since we were a newbie country.

If you don’t mind, please scroll back up a bit and address the questions I posed to you about the Book of Proverbs.

I assume you mean….

I certainly don’t want my daughters to behave thusly. And I’ll certainly advise my sons (in the strongest terms possible) to avoid sluts. Isn’t that what the church in general, and fathers in particular, should do? After all, the Book of Proverbs spends one chapter describing the ideal wife/mother, but three chapters warning young men to avoid sluts.

Okay. And I don’t want any daughter or mine to be a slut. Problem is, once they move out of our houses dad, we aren’t in control anymore. We think we are, but in reality we aren’t. And most women live on their own for a little while (sometimes a long while) before they get married (if ever.) And you and I (and the church) can only advise how we want our daughters to behave. They are no longer under our roof so our control is limited.

As far as sons avoiding sluts, sometimes they don’t have access to all the information. If she has an N-count of 0 (zero) he would know but he is not going to know (for sure) if her N-count is 1 or 101. Unless you insist your sons only marry virgins (and what happens dad if she lies and tells him she was virgin and he doesn’t find out the truth until their wedding night? Now your boy is screwed!) you never really know for sure.

So I mean, you and I can preach and all but we are not manufacturing virgin girls out of thin air for our sons, nor do we have any real power to strap that chastity belt on our daughters no matter how much we think we can. All we can do is offer the best advise we have and go forward from there.

There once was a South African private security firm called Executive Outcomes that did some outstanding work in Angola, Sierra Leone, etc. in the ’90s. EO no longer exists (too politically incorrect, and too effective, demonstrating the incompetence of the UN), but other private security firms do.

I worked with a team from Blackwater (now called Academi) in Afghanistan, and thought they were very skilled and professional (all former US Army SF).

Although I doubt any current private security firm has the kind of expertise in Africa that EO had, if someone really wanted to “do something” about this situation, the best thing they probably could do is raise enough money to hire Academi or some similar organization to retrieve these girls.

It isn’t no fault divorce in isolation (although even in isolation it would be extremely problematic). In order to screw up marriage as badly as we have you need our current cocktail of no fault divorce combined with default mother custody and child support,

The divorce rate of a society depends on one thing only (engineered by the cocktail described by Dalrock above) :

Can the woman divorce without her living standard going down in the near term?

If yes, that country has a low divorce rate.
If no due to rigged laws, that country has a high divorce rate.

That is all there is. All the rationalizations of ‘I was not haaaaapy’ or ‘we grew apart’, are just smokescreen for the cold financial calculation.

Countries where men can toss out their wives without cost still have a very low divorce rate. Why? Because men tend to put the well-being of children above their own short-term thrills. Men tend to be responsible adults that way. A society where almost all children grow up with both biological parents in the same house is only possible if men hold over half of the legal power in marriage.

IBB still has no clue about the financial benefits a woman receives from divorce. If no-fault divorce existed WITHOUT any rights to the husband’s past and future earnings and savings, the divorce rate in America would still be just 5-10%.

IBB is too obsessed with the M-word. He thinks pre-marital sex is a sin if a man does (although not if a woman does it, which is itself a strange cognitive dissonance), but he thinks Biblical doctrine on marriage also applies to Marriage 2.0, with no distinction. That is how they get you – dupe tradcons into going along with anything that resides under the M-word, no matter how much a departure from Marriage 1.0.

After giving it no small amount of thought, if you allowed me to change only one thing at the legal level it would be to abolish child support. Child support is plain and simple an alternative to marriage. At best it is a necessary evil, but we have removed the need to prove necessity, making it simply evil.

I am with you on this one.

The church is the other strategic point which could bring us back to marriage as well. If unwed mothers (classic or new) were no longer called heroes by family values Christians, and instead were seen as failures and morally suspect, both paths to babymamahood would be severely constrained.

I am NOT with you on this one. And why? Because the baba mamas would just not go to church. They would boycott, sit it out (as would the grand parents who may have been very active church members.)

As Christians Dalrock, we are commanded to forgive. I’m not going to shun a baby mama. You are correct in that the church should not (in anyway) regard them as heroes. They aren’t. Sarah Palin’s daughter is a Ho and the father is a sleazebag. But calling them out (perhaps individually) in church as failures is just going to make them leave. Gone.

Now if you mean the pastor calls out that behavior (and not the individuals in the pews) are failures and morally suspect, I am with you on that one. But that is a dangerous game the pastor plays as he risks losing his parish and even his own job for taking a stand. Watch that movie Heaven is for Real (a true story I might add) to see where this path may lead with the church board and how it deals with a pastor that says things that (while true) is also controversial.

“I agree with her riding the cock carrousel is destructive to her and society at large. I am just not into shaming her for it.”

What constitutes “shaming”? When one states that sexual promiscuity is sinful and destructive to all involved (and even those not involved), is that “shaming”?

“I would never encourage a young man to marry a slut, but I am not going to shame him or her or discourage him either.”

Why not? Is the Book of Proverbs wrong for warning young men to avoid sluts? Proverbs 5 says of slutty women:

3 For the lips of an immoral woman are as sweet as honey,
and her mouth is smoother than oil.
4 But in the end she is as bitter as poison,
as dangerous as a double-edged sword.
5 Her feet go down to death;
her steps lead straight to the grave.

Of men who fall for sluts, Proverbs 7 says:

7 I saw some naive young men,
and one in particular who lacked common sense.
8 He was crossing the street near the house of an immoral woman
…
22 He followed her at once,
like an ox going to the slaughter.
He was like a stag caught in a trap,
23 awaiting the arrow that would pierce its heart.
He was like a bird flying into a snare,
little knowing it would cost him his life.

The Bible tells us that sluts are death traps. Is that shaming? If so, is the Bible wrong?

The Bible tells us that men who fall for sluts are naive, senseless, stupid animals led to the slaughter. Is that shaming? If so, is the Bible wrong?

After giving it no small amount of thought, if you allowed me to change only one thing at the legal level it would be to abolish child support.

Agreed. In fact, that is the single worst law in the United States today, and probably the most unjust law in the last 140 years.

Men are jailed for falling behind in payments, even if without a job (itself often due to feminist distortions to the private sector).
It makes women use the children as conduits to siphon money to themselves.
Since CS is a percentage of income, not a fixed amount, it can destroy rich men too.Women do not have to show that they spent the money on the child.. Frankly, if CS were paid not in cash, but in vouchers that could only be spent on the child, the divorce rate would drop greatly, as it would not be possible for the woman to use CS to buy herself new purses while feeding the kid the bare minimum of white rice to keep it alive (and thus payments coming).
In Scandinavian countries, joint custody is assumed. So divorce does not have quite the zeal of misandry that we see in the US.

I notice people throwing about the term “no-fault divorce” and ignoring the real poison pill in the American Caesar’s divorce laws, unilateral divorce. Fault-finding in the Bad Old Days served two purposes, (1) determining if Caesar would divorce the couple and (2) if Caesar divorced the couple, how Caesar would distribute assets and liabilities (especially alimony and so-called child support payments) post-marriage.

Taken independently of unilateral divorce, all that the no-fault divorce principle does is take Caesar out meddling with the couple’s assets and assignment of post-divorce liabilities. Absent the unilateral divorce power that was smuggled into no-fault divorce laws, the spouses might well be expected to negotiate their own divorce settlement contract before asking Caesar for a final divorce decree.

Yes, feminist judges (of any kind of sex, including ‘none’) are ubiquitous and I suppose only a few years would pass before whiners would appear to moan and groan that the little female dears (who are seen as children by feminists–look at what feminists do not what they say) were taken to the cleaners by their men that they chose to divorce. (Yes, feminists really do believe that men have superior intelligence and foresight–again, look at what feminists do not what they say.) But in a democracy like America’s any adult citizen has the privilege of voting and that’s the chance we take.

Speaking of voting, the biennial election season is already upon us. Have you quizzed candidates about their stands on matters important for the health of marriage as discussed here? Are you prepared to go to the polls and Vote Male?

The Bible tells us that sluts are death traps. Is that shaming? If so, is the Bible wrong?

The Bible tells us that men who fall for sluts are naive, senseless, stupid animals led to the slaughter. Is that shaming? If so, is the Bible wrong?

The Bible is not wrong. It is perfect. The second sentence in the Bible perfectly describes The Big Bang Theory in the only way an ancient man could perfectly understand it.

Tell me, how could The Bible identify if my son’s girlfriend is a virtuous woman or a slut? My son marries her and she does not bleed on her wedding night, she instead cries when my son yells at her for deceiving him. Should my son divorce her? She is (by law) entitled to cash and prizes. What if my son got her pregnant? What then?

The Bible is perfect but the Bible is not a crystal ball. It is not all telling about individuals and their choices. So your comments on Proverbs are noted but they don’t help all that much with no-fault-divorce law now do they?

TFH, that’s also to do with the marriage rate in Scandinavia being a lot lower. A lot of couples just cohabit without the ring, and over there there are no Alpha’s for them to fantasize about like there are in other countries. You think American men are emasculated? You haven’t seen anything till you’ve gone there.

It’s sad, it’s almost exactly like a domestic abuse situation, where one person thinks that they are so worthless as a human being they should take whatever behavior is dealt to them and that they deserve it.

If women in Sweden had alphas to go for the divorce rate would be off the charts, but they are incredibly hypergamous anyway a cohabitting couple splitting up won’t show up on a stat chart.

OscarThere once was a South African private security firm called Executive Outcomes that did some outstanding work in Angola, Sierra Leone, etc. in the ’90s. EO no longer exists (too politically incorrect, and too effective, demonstrating the incompetence of the UN), but other private security firms do.

Nigerian government might not like it. If nothing else it would make their army look pretty bad.

An unwilling child bride repeatedly protested and refused her marriage. Then quite suddenly she agreed and insisted on a wedding with many of the perv groom’s scummy friends, insisting she alone fix the meal.

The curious thing about this whole affair is that it is the first time the Cathedral and Islam part ways. It seems to me that this is the beginning of the end of this marriage of convenience. Maybe the Left feels strong enough to do without Islam.

“IBB still has no clue about the financial benefits a woman receives from divorce. If no-fault divorce existed WITHOUT any rights to the husband’s past and future earnings and savings, the divorce rate in America would still be just 5-10%.”

This is something that men can unilaterally implement, if they have the balls. There are two phases to this. One is, pre-divorce (ideally from before even marrying, if a man does decide to marry at all), he sets things up so that he officially “owns” as little as possible, at least that the gov’t can easily find to steal to fence to his former wife. That means own no land, no stocks, no 401k or IRA, lease vehicles (or have beater vehicles with negligible Blue Book values), negligible bank account balances at ANY time, etc. Of course, getting a job that either he’s paid cash under the table or ones legally not required to pay Social Security would be ideal, if not something all men can do.

Likewise, a man who intends to marry so as to have legitimate children (the only plausibly sufficient reason to marry in the U.S. now) would do well to pick a field that does NOT depend on having a gov’t-issued license to be able to work. That cuts out being an M.D., nurse, lawyer, truck/delivery driver, more than a few things. And, his field should NOT be one in which he probably has to work for the gov’t to have a job in his area.

Lastly, he can have savings, even investments. They just can’t be in the U.S., unless they’re in the form of hidden goods, cash, or precious metals. His wife, her family, and her friends CANNOT know where those are, of course.

Then, when she lowers the boom, he shrugs, walks out the door, goes “ghost” or permanently expats (better have a non-U.S. passport, or at least leave the U.S. practically immediately, before his U.S. one is cancelled), and leaves her to EPL poverty and cats. (The kids, I won’t touch on here.)

Let a few million middle class and upper middle class men do this, and watch the divorce industrial complex collapse.

The curious thing about this whole affair is that it is the first time the Cathedral and Islam part ways. It seems to me that this is the beginning of the end of this marriage of convenience. Maybe the Left feels strong enough to do without Islam.

Not quite the first time. Remember the Neo-Conservatives after all. For the past 100 years, accounts of Muslim Spain have been extremely positive. Which was mainly a way to condemn the Catholic Church for ruining the fun. But these days Rome is ashamed to be Catholic, and goes begging forgiveness from Jewish groups, while Islamic groups blow up pizza restaurants. So the tide has turned. Most books on Muslim Spain these days high light how, well, Islamic it all was – persecution, injustice, lynchings and so on.

We will have to see what Britain’s Guardian does. Given they have embraced the Islamists wholesale. Will they condemn the slavers and rapists? Or just call them “kidnappers” (as if there is any chance of getting them back) and “militants”.

There have been several cohorts of strong independent women go through the US (and other western) military. Couldn’t they kinda get together through the old girls network and create a womans liberation army, pop over to Nigeria, liberate the girls and be back for the sewing circle at tea time?

I know a number of former EO men (one of them is a very close family member) and what they did. That is why the comments by innocentbystanderboston are nothing more than that of a bloodlusting ignorant chicken shit computer warrior who instigates others to do what he is both incapable of doing and to afraid of doing.

Opus: Americans say whatever they like
Friend: Surely not?
Opus They have the 1st Amendment
Friend: What is that?
Opus: The American’s right to say what they want
Friend: But they can’t be offensive
Opus: Yes they can
Friend No 2: If they are offensive they get shot
Opus: That is a possibility

– then later –

Friend No 2: I was on an English train and got into conversation with two Americans. I asked them how they were enjoying being in England. They said the weather was awful and were fed up with the fact that English people are always apologising, by saying sorry even when they have done nothing which would merit an apology [say when someone steps on their foot].
Opus: It diffuses any potential argument.
Friend No. 2: This is an overcrowded country but America is vast and spacious.

– later still –

Friend No.1: My foreign born wife thinks I should give a bottle of wine to a woman who recommended my services for a job I got.
Opus: She would feel embarrassed if you did so.
Friend No 2: She would then feel obliged to offer you something in return for the wine – and so on.
Opus: That is known as Pot latch – gift giving where each gift has to be better than the last one – and happens in societies that do not use money.
Friend No 1: She offered her Doctor a bottle of wine but he said he gave the same service to everyone regardless.
Opus: Foreigners don’t understand – Gift offering looks like Bribery to us – but broadly we are not open to corruption. I expect the Americans are pretty similar.